transcription 22 july 2008

ALAC Monthly Teleconference
(Held July 22, 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 åthe 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.

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

List of Participants
Important Note: Please note that this should not be considered to be an "official" list of the attendees. This is just a list of the participants that we were able to identify during the transcription. There may have been others present that didn't speak and some people may have participated that were not on the official list of attendees published on the internet.

Alan Greenberg
Beau Brendler
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Frederic Teboul
Hawa Diakite
Izumi Aizu
José Ovidio Salgueiro
Nguyen Thu Hue
Nick Ashton-Hart
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Sébastien Bachollet

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

29
Nick Ashton-Hart joined
Nick: Hello, everybody.
49
José Ovidio Salgueiro joined
Nick: Hello.
José: Hello. pause Hello.
Nick: Yeah, can you hear me?
José: Yes. This is José here.
Nick: Yeah, you sound like you’re on a… umm, IP call or something. Kind of… It sounds like you’re underwater.
phone beeping
José Ovidio Salgueiro left
O: Good morning, Nick. This is Tanya.
Nick: Hello.
O: Hello. He’s on a cell phone and this is what happened last time I dialled him in also.
Nick: Okay.
O: We had multiple drops and then couldn’t get him back in. So I’ll continue on with the dial-outs and try to get him back in.
Nick: Great.
O: Okay.
Nick: Thanks.
O?: Thank you, you’re…
Nick: Hello?
inaudible voices in background 09.39
Male: If you want to speak English, you do inaudible and mute the French.
Female: Okay. So I have to have one of inaudible?
Male: Yeah.
dial tone
inaudible voices in background 10.07
Male: No… overtalking inaudible silence is inaudible.
Female: Oh. Well, when I switch into French…
Male: inaudible pause Speak English, mute the French.
Female: Okay. Okay.
34
Frederic Teboul joined
Cheryl Langdon-Orr joined
Cheryl: Hello?
Nick: Hey!
Frederic?: Hello, Cheryl.
Cheryl: How are we all?
Nick: Good.
Cheryl: Excellent.
05
Sébastien Bachollet joined
Cheryl: Hello.
Nick: Hello.
31
Beau Brendler joined
Nick: Oh.
Beau: Hi there.
Nick: I heard you were back.
Beau: Yes, I had my first day of work yesterday. Boy, did I have a lot of e-mail waiting for me.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond joined
Nick: I’m sure you did have a lot of e-mail. laughter
Beau: 58 megabytes actually, to be precise.
Cheryl?: Oh!
Nick: Overwhelming 14.58 amount.
Beau: laughter So yes…
Cheryl: Dare I ask how much of it was spam?
Beau: Actually we have pretty good spam filters where we are, so we don’t get… The occasional Viagra note gets through, but we have a pretty good spam filter, so not too bad.
Cheryl: That is impressive.
Olivier: Hello, everyone. I’m Olivier. I’m on the line.
Nick: Hello.
Cheryl: Hi, Olivier.
Olivier: How are you?
Cheryl: Fine, thank you. We’re just waiting for a few more people before we do a…
Olivier: No problem. Keep on talking about spam, as I’m deleting spam in my mailbox.
Cheryl: inaudible 15.42 laughter
José Ovidio Salgueiro joined
Cheryl: Hi. Who was that?
José: Hello?
Cheryl: Hello.
José: Hello. This is José here.
Nick: One sec.
phone noises
Nick: Hey, one sec 16.17.
phone noises
Cheryl: Whoa, that’s not real good.
phone noises
Cheryl: Can we isolate what that odd noise is inaudible 16.51 somebody’s on?
phone noises
Female: inaudible 17.11
inaudible voices and noises in background
Cheryl: Okay, that’s not going to work. Whoever’s line that is with that background either has to mute or dial in again.
unknown joined
inaudible voices and noises in background 17.43
Cheryl: Nick, can we isolate whose line that is that’s causing the interference?
51
Female: Hello, Cheryl… inaudible
Cheryl: Hello, who is that?
Thu Hue: This is Thu Hue… inaudible
José?: Hello? Hello?
Cheryl: Sorry, I cannot understand who that is. Can you please repeat?
Thu Hue: This is Hue from Vietnam.
Cheryl: Ah! Hello, Thu. How are you?
Thu Hue: Yeah, I’m fine.
sound of police siren?
Thu Hue?: Who are there? 19.17
José: Hi, this is José. inaudible anybody there?
Cheryl: Yes, who is that? Please say again.
José: This is José.
Cheryl: Hi, José. How are you?
José: Great.
Cheryl: We have a few very noisy lines, so it might be important that those…
Izumi Aizu joined
Cheryl: …in a noisy environment do star-6 to mute. But before you do mute, we will do a quick roll call. I have Beau, I have Sébastien, I have Thu Hue, I have José, I have Vanda… Do I have Vanda? pause
Nick: Sorry about that. I’m back.
static noise
Cheryl: Hi, Nick.
Nick: So I currently show Cheryl, José, and Beau, with one observer and two staff.
Cheryl: No 20.33, we have Sébastien, we have Thu Hue, we have José. I’ve got Vanda on Skype. Is Vanda on that call? pause Not as yet.
I have Olivier…
Olivier: Yeah, I’m here.
Cheryl: inaudible 20.53 I have Jacqueline on Skype and not on the call, but she’s available to answer any questions on the ccNSO. Hawa will be joining us, I believe.
Nick: Yeah, in 20 minutes I think. Well, 10 now.
Cheryl: Okay. So it’s probably any inaudible 21.18…
Izumi?: Here.
Cheryl: Hello. Who’s that?
Izumi: And this is Izumi.
Cheryl: Ah. Hello, Izumi.
Izumi: Good evening.
Cheryl: Okay. I’m only counting six ALAC members. Is that correct?
Nick: So far, yes.
Cheryl: Okay. So we still don’t have quorum, so we will need to wait for another couple of minutes. We have apologies currently listed from Wendy, our Board Liaison; from Hong, our IDN Liaison; from Annette and Carlos and Fatimata. And now with Jacqueline, she’s 22.11…
Nick: Attending electronically.
Cheryl: Yes, I think we should have her as a presence, but electronically, not on the call.
Alan Greenberg joined
Cheryl: Hi, Alan.
Alan: Hello.
Cheryl: Just waiting for one more ALAC member and we’ll be quorate. And we’ve just listed some apologies. Do you have any apologies that you know about, Alan, or…?
Alan: I apologize that it’s been very early here since my first conference call and I’m not quite alert.
Cheryl: laughter I think the fact that you’re here regardless of the time is…
Alan: Four and a half hours of straight conference calls this morning.
Cheryl: Oh, dear me. Okay. Well… 23.06
Alan: You are going to hear the sound of me making coffee soon.
Cheryl: laughter Well, I think that’s only fair and reasonable, and I’m sure many of us will virtually join you in that very sensible requirement of a caffeine intake.
Now I have Vanda listed as an apology on Skype, but I see her on Skype as a…
Alan: Yes, but she did send a message this morning saying… I got it this morning, saying that meetings yesterday, today, and tomorrow are no good.
Cheryl: Ah, okay.
Alan: I’m not quite sure what that means.
Nick: She did send apologies, yeah.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, we’ll list her as an apology, which means we still need one more ALAC member to be quorate. But until we get that, perhaps we might take the advantage of… particularly since we have at least one observer here tonight, to look at what is the standing items of the agenda, which includes the liaison reports. The standing items are listed on the wiki page. Olivier, are you looking at the wiki page as well to follow on? pause
Alan: Have we already done the roll call?
Olivier: I’ve just lost connectivity on the internet on this side. I’ll check it in a few minutes.
Cheryl: Okay. The main thing is you know it’s there and you can follow on. We’re actually poised on the roll call. At the moment we have… or perhaps, Nick, it might be easier for you to double-check as I do that, but I have myself, Beau, Sébastien, Thu Hue, José, Izumi, and Alan. I have Olivier as an observer. We have Hawa being dialled in shortly. And we have Jacqueline electronically but not on the call. And Nick and Frederic as staff.
Nick: Umm…
Alan: Could someone repeat the ALAC members…
Nick?: Sorry… overtalking 25.15
Alan: …ALAC members who are here slow enough so I can write them down? I had Cheryl, Beau…
Cheryl: Sébastien…
Nick: José, Sébastien…
Cheryl: …José, Thu Hue.
Nick?: …Hue…
Cheryl?: …Hue.
Nick: …Izumi, Alan.
Cheryl: So that’s seven. pause Okay at 10 minutes after the call starting, and noting that we have inaudible 25.56 up to… we have three ALAC members as apologies, is there anyone we should be dialling out to, Nick, that hasn’t apologized that we might be able to get online?
Nick: Not that I know of. I’m sure that…
phone beeps
Nick: …Adigo is listening to this and will let us know what the status of the dial-outs is. So I think she’s 26.29… overtalking
Cheryl: If we can get Hawa online, then we will be quorate. pause If we can get Hawa on the French channel, we can begin the meeting. I know she said call her back in 20 minutes, but I am not of a mind to hold up 9 people for 10 more minutes if we can begin a meeting as soon as she’s connected.
Nick: Tanya, have you had any luck reaching Mohamed?
O: I’ve had no luck reaching Mohamed. The first number is getting voicemail. The second number just keeps ringing. Also, Ron Sherwood, we’re getting voicemail on the first number, the second number is ringing.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, it’s Mohamed that would make us quorate, not…
Nick: Not Ron. Could you ring Hawa back and let her know that there are nine people here waiting to start the meeting?
O: Yes, I’ll let the French channel know.
Cheryl: Yeah, if she joins us, then we can begin and I think that’s our preference.
O: Okay.
Cheryl: Well, I know it’s our preference.
O: I’ll let her know.
Cheryl: Thank you. laughter Well, while we’re filling in all of our valuable time, I think it’s probably appropriate to say to those of you who did join us at the last ICANN meeting in Paris, I hope you’ve all returned to work. I know, Beau, you’ve only been back for, well, less than 24 hours, but many of the rest of you will have been back for some time. I hope that you’ve all got back into the normal run of things. Alan, I know you’ve been hardly doing anything other than work for ICANN and the ALAC between our Paris meeting and now, and it might be appropriate if you give us all… whilst we’re in informal mode, a little up to speed and bring up to date on the activities of the working group you are representing us on in terms of the GNSO improvements.
Alan: Okay. We’ve had – I’ve lost track of how many meetings – six meetings at this point or something like that. We have one meeting to go. As of now, and now is three minutes ago or so, or five minutes when I dropped off the last call, it looks like we will have consensus to propose the thing 29.02 to the board, which nobody I think would have bet on that earlier, a week before now.
Cheryl: Wow.
Alan: The proposal essentially is a council with two halves to it, two “houses” as it were – the contracted parties and the non-contracted parties. The number of… Each of those houses will have, excluding NomCom, an equal number of councillors from each of the stakeholder groups – so parity between registrar/registries and between non-commercial and commercial will be maintained as in the BGC proposal. The number of councillors on either side may vary but would be likely fixed before we finish – so there could be three from each of the stakeholder groups on the contracted parties and six on the other side, for instance. And the voting thresholds for each type of vote will include terms which will add some level of balance but will be counted within each house. So there’s not weighted voting per se, but, you know, a given vote may need a majority on both sides or 33% on both sides or whatever the terms are.
At this stage, we will have one NomCom person in either of the two houses. In both of the two houses, rather. So if the house is larger, that person will in fact have a lower impact on the voting. It is unclear if we will ask the NomCom to select the chair of the overall council. And there’s a number of other rules associated with, umm – sorry, my mind has gone blank – with selecting board members and things like that, which I don’t think are of immediate concern to us.
At this point, we’re haggling over the voting thresholds in category by category, and GNSO has about six different voting thresholds for different things. And we may have closure. I will be getting a report sometime today or a summary of this meeting. And then we have one final meeting which may bring closure – or not, but I think at this point it will – out of our Thursday meeting for a report to the board on Friday.
inaudible voices in background
Cheryl: Alan, that is monumental.
Alan: Sorry, I’m hearing voices somewhere else.
Cheryl: Well, my voice is saying, “Alan, that is monumental.”
Alan: Thank you. Umm, I’ll be very candid.
Cheryl: Yeah.
Alan: I don’t see this as a huge difference between this and the BGC model. But enough other people do, who were worried about the BGC model, are happy with it, that 32.10…
dial tone
Alan: Hello?
Cheryl: Hang on, Alan.
Alan: Okay. As long as I’m not the one who’s hung up.
Cheryl: Alan, inaudible 32.18. pause Everybody off inaudible, please.
Alan: I don’t know what you’re saying, threshold, you’re cutting…
phone tones
Alan: Hello?
Cheryl: I’m still here, Alan.
Nick: Tanya will fix it, I’m sure.
Alan: Okay.
José Ovidio Salgueiro left
Alan: Technology wins again.
Cheryl: I think at least… Okay. Well, we hope José comes back in very quickly.
Nick: José will come back. He’s on a mobile connection, and like last time, this just means he’ll get disconnected frequently, but she’s dialling him back, so…
Cheryl: Sure, okay. Okay, thanks for that. Alan, you were being candid before the background noise.
Alan: Yes. From my perspective, I mean, the thresholds are different because having to have a majority for instance on both sides is different from having to have a majority on a united council, you know, which can be generated largely from what are now being called two of the stakeholder groups and a few others, whereas… but they can be allocated differently. So for instance, registrars/registries and a few friends can generate a majority vote, whereas here you may need a majority of both houses. But to be honest, in real-life situations, I’m not sure there’s a big difference between it, other than non-commercial/commercial may end up with more physical councillors than registries/registrars. That can generate effectively a filibuster in that they have more speaking opportunities. laughter But there’s not an awful lot of difference, but people seem to be happy with it and I’m willing to accept it 34.09.
We are likely looking at two NomCom positions, one on each house, and they will have different impact in the voting based on how many other councillors there are in that house. But we are looking in both cases for someone who understands the businesses or the types of things we’re looking at. So in other words, someone to be appointed to the registrars’ NomCom position has to have some concept of what registrars and registries are some working knowledge. So they’re different positions that the NomCom has to fill, and they’re filled with the knowledge that they have different impact.
Cheryl: Yeah. Well, I think it’s still an enormous step forward to build any model that is able to get consensus under the constraints and under the very divergent views you’ve been working in, and I certainly want to thank you on behalf not only of myself and the ALAC but the particularly those of us who’ve worked, albeit only in the background, with you through this process up until now. The incredible amount of work that you’ve done is something that not only do I want noted in the minutes, but I think… I hope you realize how much we appreciate. And is there are any questions while we are waiting for José to be confirmed back into the call from anybody?
Alan: I will point out in the last two weeks on ICANN matters in general, I have been putting in something equivalent to an eight-hour day on most days, more on others.
Translator: French – 35.57
Alan: Pardon me?
Cheryl: That was the French channel?
Translator: 10
Sébastien: 19 Please don’t speak to everyone but just on the channel to Hawa, please.
Cheryl: Thank you, Sébastien. Did Hawa have a question for Alan on that matter?
Sébastien: No, they are trying to find a way to discuss together, and it seems to be that the channel between Hawa and the translator, it’s a very low volume and she has difficulty to listen and translate was the reason.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, perhaps Tanya and the Adigo French channel can bear with that as well, but we will continue on then. Can we confirm that José has been dialled back in? pause
O: overtalking 37.06
Cheryl: It seems as if the gods are stacking against us to get a quorate. I can get Hawa in and I lose José in the transition.
unknown left
Alan: Somebody just left. I didn’t hear who.
Cheryl: No, neither did I. Okay. Any questions for Alan while we’re still in informal session on what is a pivotal piece of work. This is a landmark moment, I think.
Alan: It hasn’t happened yet. laughter
Cheryl: Mmm. Closer than it’s been. laughter Do you believe that there will be a turnaround or are you pretty… your confidence is high that this proposal will go ahead?
Alan: My confidence is reasonably high, but we need to get out the written document and make sure everyone thinks… what happened is what everyone thinks happened.
Cheryl: Okay. Now on that matter, how do you want us as a support group and as a committee of the whole to proceed? If the document that needs to be signed off on is being distributed today, we had a planned call tomorrow. Do you want that to go ahead or do you propose something else?
Alan: No, at this point I think that needs to go ahead. Coming out of that, I think I will do a very quick summary to the ALAC as such and ask for comments within the hour or within a few hours if there’s any strong objection. At this point, to be honest, our basic principals have been adhered to and I cannot see us vetoing it under those conditions.
Cheryl: Thank you for that.
Alan: I mean, we went into this with partners. At this point, however, I believe we are on our own. If any of the partners feel they can’t live with it, then so be it. Everyone has given a fair amount, but I think everyone has to work… talk for themselves at this point, and that’s all we can do. And at this point, I don’t see any of the basic principles that we went into this being violated by what is being proposed. I’m not foolish enough to ask people why this is different than what was proposed by the BGC, because I don’t want to hear the answer right now. laughter
Cheryl: No, don’t.
Alan: But…
Cheryl: Don’t do that, Alan. I certainly wouldn’t want you to do that. laughter
Alan: Someday I’d surely like to find out what the difference was, but at this point…
Cheryl: The fact that the 39.42 process has gone through is markedly different, and that in itself is something probably worthy of looking at in terms of outcomes and building buy-in and as a change management tool.
Alan: We don’t need… Yeah.
Cheryl: Izumi, you’ve been involved with a support group. Do you have any particular questions or issues you’d like to raise?
Izumi: No, I think, well, Alan, you’ve done a great job, although it’s a very complex issue and we don’t really know what the exact outcome. But in any case, I think sort of having the one-third… I mean, a quarter by the non-commercial group is sort of a reasonable advance. Well, I can imagine how tired you are 40.31, Alan, but it is inaudible. That’s all.
Alan: I was actually off e-mail for much of the weekend, which penalized me when I went back on, but nevertheless…
There was one issue that was relevant to us. We had general agreement much earlier in the process – I think we had agreement – that if we come to an agreement on everything else, the group would also include in that the requirement or preference – I’m not sure which – that the bylaws continue to identify the non-commercial and commercial users as “users” and not change it to “registrant” as the BGC proposal said. I’m assuming that that will be reintroduced at our last meeting and agreed to. I don’t know… I can’t guarantee that. If that does not happen and the board dogmatically goes ahead with using the term “registrant,” that doesn’t stop anyone from really participating because domain names are cheap, but it does change the tone of our outreach.
Cheryl: Yes. And we will have to make our concerns on that matter clear at that time if that’s the case by then 41.48.
Alan: If it comes out like that, we will have to make a very strong statement very quickly.
Cheryl: Indeed, indeed.
Alan: If… Actually, I’d like this group to pass a motion to that effect, so we don’t need to get together and pass a motion but we can say, “It is a formal motion of ALAC.”
Cheryl: Umm-hmm. Well, I’m with you up 42.08…
Alan: That is if “registrant” lives instead of “user,” ALAC has formally dissented.
Cheryl: A serious concern… overtalking
Alan: I’m not going to v-… We’re not going to veto on the vote on the consensus group, but we will make a strong statement to the board.
Cheryl: If you wish to propose that as a motion, Alan, I will call for a seconder. It certainly has my endorsement. Does anybody who is on this call wish to put their name as the seconder for that motion?
Alan: Do we actual have quorum at the moment?
Cheryl: I believe so. José should be back in the call. Is that correct?
Izumi: I will second that – Izumi.
Alan: Thank you.
Cheryl: Thank you, Izumi. I think that would be very worthwhile. Can I ask does anybody wish to speak against or ask any questions about Alan’s proposal seconded by Izumi? pause Olivier, observers are welcome on invitation to ask any question. If you wish to do so, feel free to now while people are perhaps considering the proposal, the motion per se, and coming off mute if they’re sensibly on it.
Olivier: I was on mute. No, I think Alan did a fantastic job. I think it’s really very laudable because obtaining consensus in such circumstances is sometimes very difficult. So definitely very impressed.
Alan: Thank you.
Cheryl: I would go so far, before I call for any dissent, which I am sincerely hoping that there will be none – yes, I am clearly showing my biases there…
Alan: laughter
Cheryl: …it’s not only been amazing, this is a situation when consensus has to be 100%. Any dissent is a failure for this working group, and I would suggest that that in itself is pretty amazing. Is there anybody of the ALAC…
Nick: Cheryl?
Cheryl: Yes, go ahead.
Nick: Just on a point of procedure, may I read what I think the motion is and…
Cheryl: Yes 44.18… overtalking
Nick: …you can correct it if I’m wrong?
Cheryl: Yes… overtalking
Nick: “ALAC shall formally dissent from the results of the Working Group on GNSO Improvements if the word ‘registrant’ is not replaced with the word ‘user’ as regards representation in the GNSO.”
Cheryl: Not quite. We don’t want to dissent from the…
Alan: No, we’re… I think his wording is correct. Read that phrase again.
Nick: “ALAC shall formally dissent from the results…”
José Ovidio Salgueiro joined
Nick: “…of the Working Group on GNSO Improvements if the word ‘registrant’ is not replaced with the word ‘user’ as regards representation in the GNSO.”
Alan: That says our dissent is coming after the results of the working group, which I believe is correct.
Cheryl: Okay. José, I didn’t realize that you hadn’t joined us back in the call. We have a finalization from the report on the excellent work done by Alan in the GNSO Improvements Working Group/Subcommittee. We have a probability of an outcome where a consensus view which meets – albeit painfully, particularly on Alan’s part for the amount of work he’s had to do to get there – all of our baseline criteria and that the only concern at the moment is earlier in the process, our concerns that the word “user,” which fits with the current bylaws, be maintained were probably agreed to. But in the case that the BGC suggestion that the term “registrant” be replaced, we have continuing concerns, and the current motion, which I will ask Nick to read again before we take a vote, is that if the word “user” is omitted and “registrant” is replaced, we do dissent from that part of the outcome. We have maintained it is “users” that require representation, not just registrants. Nick, if you care to read the exact motion, and I will call for anyone who wishes to dissent after that.
Nick: Umm… Yeah, well, you might want to first tell… if anyone… overtalking 46.54
Alan: I may have a minor wording change. Could you read it again?
Nick: “ALAC shall formally dissent from the result of the Working Group on GNSO Improvements if the word ‘registrant’ is not replaced with the word ‘user’ as regards representation in the GNSO.”
Cheryl: Alan, go ahead.
Alan: pause I think we need to wordsmith it slightly and I prefer not to do it online, but my intent is to make clear that we’re talking about something that will happen following the successful report, a consensus report to the board. That is, it doesn’t happen if the committee dissolves on Thursday and we don’t have a positive recommendation. And we’re talking about afterwards, we’re not talking about…
Nick?: Hmm.
Cheryl: Okay.
Alan: …we’re not talking about vetoing the decision. I think it needs a little bit of wordsmithing. I’m not sure we can do it this very moment, but that is the intent of what we’re voting on.
Cheryl: May I make a friendly proposal…
Alan: Sure.
Cheryl: …for you to consider then, Alan and Izumi – Izumi being the seconder of this proposal – that the following adjustment is made? “In the event of an outcome of a consensus view of the” – insert the proper name of the working group – “occurs where the term ‘user’ is replaced by the term ‘registrant’ in terms of representational description and mix, the ALAC will write to make clear its dissent from those or that aspect of the outcome.” And then we can place that better wording, final, “This is what we’re going to write if it happens,” on the ALAC list and people know that that is our intent, we have agreed that that is our intent, and other than dotting an “I” and crossing a “T,” it will go ahead without calling a formal meeting.
Alan: Yes. It requires a slight wording change just because of the convoluted sense that it currently is “user,” it implicitly will change to “registrant” unless this group changes it back to “user,” but you have the intent correct and we will wordsmith it and tell the list exactly what it is they have voted on.
Cheryl: Okay. Alright. If that is the case, we have a call for the support group wrapped around Alan for this activity tomorrow evening. We will know better then what the state of play will be and we may spend some time, I would like to propose, getting that wordsmithing done. But I will call for an indication of the in-principle support for that proposal by the ALAC now so that it be recorded in our formal minutes while we have quorum. And I would like any person who wishes to vote against this proposal to make themselves known, hence can I please ask that the French translator/interpreter check with Hawa so that we know that she is in support or not of this motion? pause
Nick: Please don’t forget to say your name before you begin speaking as it is not clear who is speaking when translated… interpreted.
Cheryl: Certainly. I trust that the interpreter knows my dulcet tones by now, however.
Translator: On behalf of Hawa, abstention.
Cheryl: Okay… overtalking 51.03
Alan: I would like to understand why in that case.
Cheryl: Can you inquire why she wishes to abstain? That is from the proposer, Alan.
Sébastien: May I say one word? It’s Sébastien. I think it’s almost… it’s very difficult to understand what’s happening in the translation of the words. I am not on the French channel but I think it’s… and Hawa, if we don’t spend time to explain to her, she will not take any decision inaudible 51.40.
Cheryl: Okay. Can I suggest that seeing as the executive is all part of the support working group, that Hawa ensures that she is on tomorrow evening’s call if at all possible when more time, and Sébastien, you can ensure at that meeting if you are able to join us that our interpretation is both clear and well understood?
Alan: I point out that being able to say this was a unanimous vote would be significant.
Cheryl: I’m very 52.15… overtalking
Sébastien: May I ask…
Alan: Can I ask her to defer her vote until tomorrow? I’m willing to accept that.
Sébastien: But may I ask, you give me two minutes to speak in French, it’ll be directly to Hawa…?
Cheryl: Yes, please go ahead. This is so important, I believe that needs to be done.
Alan: Can you get on the same channel as she is?
Sébastien: I don’t know. It’s what I’m trying.
Alan: laughter
Sébastien: French – 52.40
Cheryl: If you’re not happy to listen to two minutes of French, Alan, go and boil a kettle while that’s happening.
Alan: I don’t mind. I was asking if he was capable of doing it, not… I’m putting it on speakerphone and boiling my kettle.
Cheryl: That sounds like a good plan.
Sébastien: French – 52.56
Alan Greenberg left
Translator?: Hawa?
Sébastien: It seems that Hawa left, no?
Alan: No, Alan.
Cheryl: No, no, that was Alan. But he’ll be back. He just pushed the wrong button.
Translator: Hawa didn’t hear what you said.
Cheryl: Sébastien, just do it in French.
Sébastien: Yeah, but if she listen… It seems to be that she is not able to listen to me directly. She needs to go through the channel of the interpreter and then it’s… we’ll not win 53.31 nothing if it’s going that way. What I suggest is that I will try to get in touch with her after the call and to give it back to you, his vote and hopefully a positive one.
Cheryl: Okay. Can you also do your best to, as an alternate or even adjunct to that, Sébastien, see if she is available for tomorrow’s call where we be able to finalize this?
Sébastien: overtalking 54.11
inaudible voices and noises in background
Cheryl: Whoever it is, it’s children or background noise, press star-6.
Sébastien: 24 pause I was trying to see if it’s not Hawa. Okay. I don’t… I have no feedback from her.
Cheryl: Is the French translator…
Alan Greenberg joined
Translator: No, there aren’t any children with Hawa at the moment.
Cheryl: Nobody suggested they were with Hawa. We want to know what the answer to Sébastien’s question is.
Alan: I’m back. I dropped off.
Sébastien: Can you ask Hawa if she can spend a 55.01 few times with me after the call to discuss directly in French the situation about the GNSO?
Translator: Okay, good. But what’s your name? Sébastien?
Sébastien: I am Sébastien.
Translator: Okay, good. I’ll ask her now.
Sébastien: Okay, thank you. pause
Alan: I take it I didn’t miss anything.
Cheryl: No, just technology.
Translator: Sébastien? Sébastien?
Sébastien: Yes.
Translator: Hawa says yes, she’ll be glad to talk to you after the call.
Sébastien: Okay, thank you.
Cheryl: Okay. So if the record can show the agreements by all other ALAC members present on this call with a placeholder for Hawa pending language check and understanding and comprehension to be crosschecked by our vice chair, Sébastien, with Hawa immediately after this call, she currently registers a… I’ve lost the word.
Alan: Abstained.
Cheryl: Abstention.
Alan: Abstention.
Cheryl: I’m also tired, Alan. I do understand.
Alan: laughter
Cheryl: An abstention…
Alan: But you’re at least going to bed now.
Cheryl: That is a… Yes, but, umm, long story. That is a placeholder. If that is the case, I would like now to move on to the next formal part of tonight’s meeting, and we are going to increase speed on that. I think that the time taken on this subject has however been important and well worthwhile. In terms of…
Alan: Just as… Cheryl, as a point of order, I do have another conference call at the one and a half hour mark of this one.
Cheryl: I’m planning on powering through. In terms of the adoption of the minutes listed in the agenda, we have a plethora of summary minutes from our last meeting. I am going to assume that you have all had the time to look at those summary minutes and to make any points that you wish to raise now in terms of alterations, a well-prepared point. I will ask for any person who wishes to make any change to any of the listed minutes, these being the following: The adoption for 10th June 2008 summary minutes; 22 June 2008 GNSO summary minutes; 22 June 2008 OneDay – I’d like to insert the word “workshop,” thank you, my amendment – summary minutes; 23 June ccNSO summary minutes; 24 June 2008 BO, Board Meeting summary minutes; 24 June 2008 GAC summary minutes; 24 June 2008 summary minutes, that is the General Meeting minutes; 26 June 2008 RRC summary… I’m assuming the word “minutes” will go into that link; 26 June 2008 SSAC summary minutes. And that is the end of the list on our agenda.
I will give a few more moments for anyone who wishes to raise a point of alteration on those minutes to do so now. I will remind you all that they are of course wiki documents and minor amendments could be noted to the list or performed to them directly, but in the absence…
Nick: May I?
Cheryl: Go ahead, Nick.
Nick: I was just going to say for the convenience of members, if you have a… providing the minutes are approved, if you have an amendment you wish to make to the minutes, may you please use the comment button so that the original minutes will still be visible but the comment will be able to be read.
Cheryl: Yeah. Thank you, Nick. That’s an excellent plan. I think that is most appropriate. So I think we will assume that Item 3, the adoption of quite a roll call of minutes with the two minor amendments – the insertion of the word “minutes” in one of the links and the insertion of the word “workshop” in the OneDay summary link – be adopted by this meeting. Any dissent, make your voice heard now. Any abstention, make your voice heard now.
Translator: Can we know who is talking at the moment, please?
Cheryl: Cheryl is talking.
Translator: Cheryl.
Cheryl: 30 here, I will be the voice you will hear 99.99% of the time.
Alan: I hope not. laughter
Cheryl: Well… overtalking Anyone who isn’t me will identify themselves.
Alan: It’s Alan.
Cheryl: Cheryl is now saying for a final time…
Izumi: Excuse me.
Cheryl: …that the minutes as listed in standing item 3…
Izumi: Hello.
Cheryl: …of our agenda will be listed as adopted, and I am calling for any dissent and any abstention.
Alan: Alan. I abstain.
Cheryl: Thank you, Alan.
Izumi: This is Izumi.
Cheryl: Izumi, go ahead.
Izumi: 09 late but it’s sort of a friendly amendment, that some of the summary minutes, for example, the GNSO summary minutes, doesn’t include the participants from GNSO and those who were not there may have difficulty on what exactly this minutes is about. I think the meeting between ALAC and GNSO, if it was clearer, it would be good.
Cheryl: Okay. You want that moved now as a change rather than make that comment directly on the wiki? As we pointed out, we should all be able to make comments.
Izumi: Umm, if the staff can kindly take care of that, that will give much easier for me, but if not, I will do it.
Cheryl: Okay. Okay, umm…
Nick: I just… I’m not quite sure what is being asked.
Translator: Who is… Can I ask who is talking now? The man.
Cheryl: Okay, I can clear that up. Izumi… Listen carefully, Adigo. Izumi has just asked 10 alteration in terms of better description is made to the summary minutes. His example was the GNSO minutes. Nick has then replied he would like clarification on that. I am now, and I will usually introduce or say the name of the person who is going to speak after me as chair, Izumi will now clarify. Izumi, go ahead.
Izumi: Thank you, Cheryl. This is Izumi. The GNSO summary minutes doesn’t include the participants from GNSO nor the description that this was a meeting between ALAC and GNSO, so those who were not there may have a misunderstanding that this was an ALAC-only meeting. So if you could add one line, sort of a clearer description in the beginning, that would be great.
Cheryl: Nick, do you understand that request?
Nick: Yeah.
Cheryl: I assume there is no problem making those adjustments to any and all of the minutes, to make it clear whom the participants are. pause I take that as a yes.
Nick: Yes, that’s no problem.
Cheryl: And I will now move on to the review of the June action items.
José Ovidio Salgueiro left
Cheryl: Okay. Is… Waiting for the steam-driven computer here to look at the June action items. I would like to in general run through these as a batch and note that the June action items were in the main… in fact, looking down, all were action items that were completed for the Paris meeting. Would anyone wish to ask a question or make a comment on those action items in short order? Make your 23 known now. pause
In which case, we will move on to the current status of ALS applications. Nick, can you go through those with us, please?
Nick: Yes. There are four. Sorry, I’m just going back from the action items. There are four…
Translator: Please introduce yourself before talking, please.
Nick: This is…
Cheryl: Okay. Can you listen…
Translator: Who is this?
Cheryl: It’s Cheryl. Cheryl said as chair very clearly, “Nick, can you talk to those?” Nick will now do so.
Nick: There are four applications ready for decision – those being that of ACUI, application number 106; application 110, CDNUA; application 111, MACSIS; and application 113, ISOC New York. Regional advice has been provided on all four and the regional advice of all four is to approve the applications.
ALAC may do one of two things. It may… Any member of ALAC may request that a formal vote is taken on these applications, in which case a vote will begin from seven days once it’s set up. Or if no member of ALAC requests a vote in the seven days following this meeting, the regional advice will automatically be followed as if a unanimous vote had been taken.
Cheryl: Thank you, Nick. As chair, I’d like to make clear to you all these… the regional advice and this proposal of to vote or not to vote had been listed I believe for more than seven days on the minutes proposed for… sorry, on the agenda for tonight’s meeting. Are we aware, Nick or Frederic, of anyone from the ALAC who has asked us to take a formal vote on these?
Nick: I would just say that I actually posted these on Sunday. Maybe Monday.
Cheryl: Ah, okay. So it hasn’t been seven days. My apologies.
Nick: Yeah, it hasn’t been seven days. Yes.
Cheryl: It has been under three. Okay. Are we aware of anybody who is not on tonight’s… today’s call who has asked for a vote to be taken on these? Nick?
Nick: Vanda has not asked for a vote per se. She has asked whether or not if a vote is requested by any member, if that requires a second, via e-mail to me. I responded and said that the procedure does not require a second in this case. But she has not…
Cheryl: Okay. Thank you for that.
Nick: …asked yet.
Cheryl: Okay. Thank you for that. May I ask the ALAC at today’s meeting if they or any one of them wishes to have a formal vote on accepting the regional advice for admission as an ALS structure on each of the listed proposed ALSes? Does anyone wish to call for a formal vote or will we accept at this meeting the regional advice, which will be automatically followed? pause
Sébastien: We accept the regional advice – Sébastien 54.
Cheryl: Thank you, Sébastien. Can we check, does Hawa wish to have a formal vote on the proposed new ALSes? If she does not, we will then accept the regional advice and all will be admitted as a formal ALS. pause
Alan: Cheryl, while we’re waiting, are you on Skype?
Cheryl: I am. I probably just… it’s behind my other screen. Yes.
Alan: Okay, because it says you’re sleeping.
Cheryl: Well, I’d like to be, but…
Alan: laughter
Cheryl: I haven’t changed my status, but yes, I am on Skype. So if you want to take, feel free to ping me on Skype.
In the absence of anyone at this meeting, and anyone by e-mail or advising staff, wishing to take a formal vote on the listed proposed ALSes, we will be accepting the regional advice as proposed by Sébastien, and no seven-day vote will be required, and staff can now let the proposed ALSes know that they are indeed all more than welcome onboard.
Nick: As a point of clarification, is the committee resolving to admit these applications at present or does it wish to 25…
Cheryl: Yes, that is exactly what the proposal is.
Nick: Okay.
Cheryl: In which case, let’s make that so. And I look forward to having four brand-new ALS structures. I’m particularly excited to see one from Asia Pacific.
Translator: Yes, this is Hawa’s answer – she’s ready to vote.
Cheryl: She wishes to vote?
Translator: She wishes to vote.
Alan: I… I don’t think that’s… I don’t think…
Cheryl: Sébastien, can you double-check?
Sébastien: I am sure that she’s ready to vote, that she’s agreed with the decision made by the regional 07.
Cheryl: That’s alright, that’s alright.
Sébastien: It’s the way… lt’s when you translate, inaudible, I am sure that she’ll lose half of the meaning of the inaudible. Then I just say for her, she’s agreed to vote that she has agreed with the decision made by the regional advice.
Translator: Yes, she said she would vote indeed, but I’m just translating her words. She said she would vote yes.
Alan: She agrees?
Cheryl: Sébastien, while I take a very deep breath…
Translator: She’s agreeing really.
Cheryl: She is agreeing with Sébastien? Can you check she is agreeing with Sébastien that we accept the new ALSes? pause Please, Adigo French channel, can you double-check with Hawa that she wishes to accept without a formal vote in the next seven days, she wishes to accept now the new proposed ALSes who all have been approved by regional advice? pause
Translator: Before, are you saying that the four ALS have been approved?
Cheryl: If Hawa says yes, yes. If Hawa says no, then we vote in the next seven days.
Translator: Could you say that again, please?
Cheryl: Sébastien, save me, please.
Sébastien: Yeah. 04 to 1.12.45 pause
Cheryl: Thank you, Sébastien.
Sébastien: And if you can add one thing… 58 If she can go to Skype… 05 …it would be easier for everybody because we will be able to 10. pause I think I will with Hawa this point too at the end of this meeting and I will come back to you at the end of 34.
Cheryl: Thank you, Sébastien, and I believe we have extra work to do in our meeting tomorrow night. Nick, when I said, “We need to talk,” we need to talk not tonight because Alan has another meeting and many of us have other work we need to get onto, but we need to improve this process radically.
This brings us to noting that the liaison reports are or will be listed. At this date, the IDN report is listed, the others are pending. And we have our ccNSO Liaison not on the call but on Skype, so if anyone wishes to ask her any questions, Jacqueline is available for you. Those reports will not be gone through at the meeting, but will be attended to the meeting page for tonight in 32 time I’m sure. If not, we will rectify that in the next formal meeting of the ALAC.
And that brings us to point 7, which I do not understand. What “Issues to be raised” at what “ICANN Board Meeting”? I’m assuming that was a cut-and-paste from a previous set of agenda points.
Nick: The ALAC resolved the…
O?: Yeah… I’m sorry.
Nick: …previous meeting – this is Nick speaking…
Cheryl: Thank you, Nick.
Nick: …that there should be an item on the standing agenda to bring up any issues which the Board Liaison was to raise at the forthcoming board meeting.
Cheryl: Thank you.
Alan: And Wendy explicitly asked that yesterday.
Cheryl: Thank you for that. I think we might need to make that a little clearer for the dull-minded and sleepy-headed, which at 12:30 AM I am likely to be from time to time. If that’s the case, that question was raised on the list. Do we need to note in tonight’s meeting any response that was seen to the list or anything that anyone wishes to raise tonight? pause
Translator: 54
Sébastien: Hawa does agree. Okay. 03
Translator: 05
Cheryl: Thank you, Sébastien. Okay. But thank you, Hawa.
It would appear that we have no particular items to be raised from today’s meeting, and I have heard – I haven’t looked because I’ve been a little busy – I have nobody telling me that there were any raised to the list. It might be appropriate however, Alan, if when you forward your report on the very busy process that you’ve been involved in on our behalf, that our Board Liaison specifically be aware of the activities and the outcomes of the ALAC working in the GNSO improvements short order working group.
Alan: She was aware as of last week when I was on the NARALO meeting, but I will copy her. I will forward the comment to this group that she was unhappy that we were not doing this on a more public and inclusive list – that is the detailed discussions.
Cheryl: Yes, okay. So noted. And in fact…
Alan: Before we go on, can I be added to the chat for this meeting?
Cheryl: Fine.
Nick: Sure, let me find you. pause Ah, there you are.
phone beeping sound begins
Cheryl: Okay. Excellent. And Alan, it would be I think appropriate for our concern over the terminology of “user” versus “registrant” to be made clear as well.
Alan: I will definitely do that.
Cheryl: Thank you very much.
In the absence of any other issues to be raised, and I would like to have that worded by our liaison at the next ICANN Board Meeting, we move to “Ratification and Status of ALAC Statements.” I am going to put that on as an item, a carryover item. We do not have the luxury of time at today’s meeting to go into that in any detail, and we have no current statements that are going to be between now and our next meeting.
Can we find who’s disconnected?
Nick: Someone’s on hold. I’m sure Tanya’s working on it.
Cheryl: Thank you, Tanya.
Nick: 32 …on hold but not muted themselves.
Cheryl: Okay.
Nick: I’m trying to find out who it is.
Cheryl: Thank you. As we move to the item, recognizing that the decisions have been made, the ALS structures, the “Items for Decision at This Meeting” include a carryover item, but one of great importance, and that is “ALAC List Structure and Moderation.” We will be deciding at this meeting to approve or otherwise – there may be a friendly amendment that someone wishes to make – the proposal that has been on the list for our consideration for… Alan, am I right? It’s been more than 10 days, hasn’t it? pause Perhaps it’s Alan on hold.
Nick: No, because I’ve got him muted. Sorry, Alan. I’m unmuting you. Now you’re back.
Alan: Hold on, I’m checking the date. I sent this out originally on the 14th. It is now the 22nd. This is Alan speaking.
Cheryl: Thank you.
Alan: I sent it out on the 14th. It is now the 22nd. It is more than one week.
Cheryl: Excellent.
Alan: I am…
Cheryl: Thank you.
Alan: Can I presume that everyone has read the document either in Paris or on the web in the last week or in the e-mail I sent out? I will summarize very…
Cheryl: I’m not going to do a roll call on that. It’s Cheryl here. I’m not going to do a roll call… 19
Alan: No. I said I’m assuming if anyone dissents, they can speak up.
Cheryl: overtalking …assumption would be valid.
Alan: Essentially we are reacting to the valid comments that our internal mailing list, for the bulk of what we talk about, there is no reason, no need for it to be purely internal. We are proposing that the bulk of our, quote, “internal discussions” be posted on the ICANN or other website so it can be viewed. We are also saying that we will have a truly internal list which is not viewable – it is still archived, but not viewable – for those things which are deemed to be not of the public concern – that is if we’re arranging to go out to dinner with each other or for cases where people feel truly inhibited, that they want to make a comment but do not want it archived for the public. There will be no technical restriction to using it only for that, but presumably the group will try to make sure that we use the publically readable mailing list.
In a later e-mail, I added the comment that the Exec Comm mailing list was publically viewable but ALAC members could not send to it, which means that any ALAC member would be moderated until it was approved. I understand from Nick that that has now been fixed, so we’re not discussing that at this point.
Nick: That’s correct.
Alan: So my recommendation is that we add one more list, without talking about the names, that we have three lists – the At-Large list, which is essentially anyone can subscribe to and comment; the ALAC list, which is for committee members and friends, publically-viewable; and a similar ALAC list which also includes the RALOs and staff, which is not publically-viewable. Added onto that, I am adding a request that we had from someone, and I can’t remember who now, for an announce-only list, publically subscribable, postable only by a small to-be-defined group of people, maybe the whole ALAC, maybe just a subset. And I would like to move that we accept those principles. There will be a second motion later on what we name them, but right now I would like to accept the principles of having those four mailing lists that were described in the proposal.
Cheryl: Thank you, Alan. May I call for a seconder?
Izumi: Yes, I will second that – Izumi.
Cheryl: Thank you, Izumi. Are there any questions, discussion, or comment on this specific proposal? pause I trust everybody has had time to come off mute if they needed to.
I will now call for anybody who wishes, any ALAC member who wishes to dissent or abstain from approving this motion to make themselves known. pause No one has come forward, therefore that motion is passed. Alan, you wish to move to a second or “part 2” motion?
Alan: Yes. Part 2 is naming of these lists. I would propose that the ALAC-Internal list stay as the internal, non-published list. We have not had any alternative suggestions, so that at this point is a given. The ALAC announce list, I propose calling it “ALAC-Announce.”
And the question then, only the question to be decided is what do we call the ALAC publishable list, that is where the bulk of the business will be done. The reasonable name for that, if we had a clean slate, would be “alac@atlarge-lists.” We are currently using “alac@” for the public list. We can do… We have two choices. We can either leave the public list as-is and call the new one “committee” or we can rename the public list “atlarge” and use “alac” for the internal list.
The second option is disruptive in that it changes the name of the current At-Large list but ends up with reasonable names for the future. The first one keeps the somewhat confusing names but nobody has to change what they’re doing other than ALAC committee members, of course.
Cheryl: Well, thank you, Alan.
Alan: Do we have any…
Cheryl: I think ALAC committee members will have to put up with inconvenience in my totally biased view. I believe minimal disruption is probably our aim. Which do you wish to put to the meeting as a proposal?
Alan: I would’ve liked to hear some comments from other people to begin with. My personal preference is say we were renaming the At-Large lists, it is not called “alac”… it is now called “atlarge” and we transfer over all the current 400 members or whatever, and from now on, when they reply, they will be replying to “atlarge” instead of “alac” and people writing brand-new notes will have to adapt or their messages will be bounced. But I’d like to hear if anyone else has opinions on this.
Nick: Yeah…
Cheryl: Okay. Thank you, Alan. But can I just ask for clarification? You just said, “I think the reverse of what is written.” I thought you were suggesting it should be “alac@atlarge-lists” as the new name.
Alan: No. I am suggesting that the new list for the committee be “alac@atlarge” and that we rename the public list…
Cheryl: “alac.”
Alan: …“atlarge.”
Izumi?: Okay.
Alan: I’m saying the list for the committee be called “alac,” which… where the “c” stands for committee, and the list for the At-Large members in general be called “atlarge.” I’m suggesting completely rational, reasonable names.
Cheryl: Okay.
Nick: Umm, may I just on a…?
Cheryl: Yes, go ahead, and then I have Sébastien.
Nick: Umm, this is Nick. I had previously asked our provider if the list could be renamed and was told that that was not possible, which is why the prefix of the “alac@” list was changed to “At-Large” in brackets. I’m not sure… Of course, there are quite large archives of the “alac@” list, so if one were to… You know…
Alan: Okay.
Nick: …one could simply say, “We’re going to take the members of the At-Large… of the ‘alac’ list and start a new list ‘atlarge,’ which has that same 05”…
Alan: But the archives would not follow.
Nick: …but I don’t believe the archives would follow that, no. I can ask that question, but I don’t think that it’s possible.
Cheryl: Sébastien?
Sébastien: Yeah. Obviously one part of the answer, it’s in the technical side, but at the naming and policy side, I think it’s better if we can have the real names for the real groups because we have this, very often we spoke about ALAC as At-Large and we don’t make the difference, and that’s also true at the level of the mailing lists. And if we want to start to be clear that there is At-Large members, that there is ALSes, there is RALO, and then At-Large participants, and 05 and ALAC is just a committee group, it will be better. But obviously if for technical reasons we are not able to do so, it’s a shame, but…
Alan: Okay. So in other words, you are supporting – it’s Alan speaking – you are supporting what I was recommending if technically it is possible?
Sébastien: Yes, I do.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: Now I have Izumi. Izumi, go ahead, please.
Izumi: Thank you, this is Izumi. And I would say I agree with Alan’s first proposal and Sébastien, but I would add that even if we have some technical problem like we cannot change the archive, I think we still should follow the new reality that the… you know, we maybe use “atlarge” for the public list and “alac” for the committee only thing to avoid the confusion because with all the RALOs, I think it’s better to clearly articulate who we’re talking about and who we are. Thank you.
Alan: It’s Alan. Can I get on the list?
Cheryl: Yes. If you’d like to respond to that, yes.
Alan: Okay. Given the complete shambles we’ve had in the GNSO discussions of everyone and their brother thinking we were talking about the ALAC committee sitting on the GNSO, including some of the people in the At-Large list in the earlier discussions, I think this is yet another example that we should take the opportunity as Izumi just said and clean it up so that we don’t perpetuate the misunderstandings between the concept of At-Large and the concept of ALAC. I would…
Nick: Umm…
Alan: I would move that we accept the renaming as described, subject to technical possibility. I have a fair amount of knowledge of the mailing list we use and I’ll deal with Nick to see if we can come up with a viable way of making sure that the archives exist but ending up with names that make sense. Does that sound acceptable, Nick? You were trying to say something.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Nick.
Nick: My suggestion was that I know that it is possible to migrate the entire archive from our current host to, for example, internal to ICANN. It might be that the best thing to do is simply to do that, to migrate the existing “alac” list and simply make a reference to that for people who wish to refer to it as a historical…
Alan: It may also be possible to simply close down… from the perception of the mailing list system, close down one list and then open another one with the same name…
Nick: Yes.
Alan: …and I think that would end up being two different lists. We need to discuss it off-line. We shouldn’t waste time. If we cannot do it, then I think we will have no choice but to use the bad names, but let’s really try to make sure that we’re presenting to the public something which is not implicitly confusing.
Cheryl: Thank you, Alan. Your motion is that the name changes as listed in the link from the agenda tonight be supported by the ALAC subject technical issues?
Alan: Correct.
Cheryl: That motion requires a seconder. Can I call for a seconder, please?
Sébastien: It was not already seconded by Izumi? If not, I will… I am seconding – Sébastien.
Izumi?: Thanks, Sébastien.
Cheryl: I think Izumi 46 the previous one, but I’ll certainly double-… I’ll get Nick to double-check. But thank you. We have a seconder. We may have multiple seconders if I’ve been in a fugue state, which is perfectly possible. If that’s the case, does anyone wish to have a further discussion on this matter? pause In the absence of anyone making themselves known for further discussion, I now call for anyone who wishes to dissent or abstain from this motion to make themselves known.
Nick: Umm, Cheryl.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Nick. I hope you’re not trying to vote. laughter
Nick: No, I’m not. I’m just noting that there are actually it seems two proposals – one, the ideal list naming, and the second proposal, that it’s decided to proceed with that naming subject to the not losing the entire archive of any list.
Cheryl: Alan, back to you. I didn’t hear two, I heard a linked one. Could you clarify, please?
Alan: My motion was that we accept the naming of “alac-internal” for the true internal list, “alac@atlarge” or “alac@” whatever for the publically readable ALAC list, “atlarge@” for the true public list open to everyone to talk, and “alac-announce”…
Nick: Yes… 20
Alan: …for announcement only, subject to technical viability. If technical viability is not there, then we will continue to use “alac@atlarge” for the public list and “committee@atlarge” for the publically readable committee working.
Cheryl: Is that clear, Nick?
Nick: Yeah, I’m just trying to word it. pause
Olivier: Cheryl, it’s Olivier. Can I make a comment as an observer?
Cheryl: You may.
Olivier: I just wondered whether one would not be better looking at a two-stage process, because the concern that I have is if “alac,” the “alac” naming is then used as a read-only list – or, well, write-only-by-the-committee – there will be a lot of people who will still have in their e-mail aliases and so on using the old “alac” name and you will get a lot of bounces and so on from people who might just use this. So the idea that I had was originally you could have the new “atlarge” list which would have an alias as “alac” for a few months, but always a return address as “atlarge” until people’s e-mails are updated on this. And then the ALAC list, being called initially “committee,” and then after a few months you would change “committee” to “alac” because it only involves members of the committee.
Alan?: I have a comment.
Cheryl: Thank you, Olivier. I think you’re a very kind man. I’m not sure whether I’m quite so kind. And I’ll ask Alan to respond to that.
Alan: I support the concept, not the details of what was just proposed. We do need to think about the implementation. There should be a transition. I do not think it should be months. But we do need to think about that and I don’t think that needs to be the subject of the committee, but we should try to phase it in in a way which will be least painful and not in such a way that we will be accused of being secretive or something like that. So your point is well taken. I’m not sure if I like the particular details, but yes.
Cheryl: Thank you for that, Alan. Are we clear on what the motion is, Nick?
Nick: Yes, I have “That ALAC-Internal shall stay the same, be used for the same purpose; that ALAC-Announce should be created for announcements only; that ‘alac’ should become the committee-only publically-readable list; and that the present ‘alac’ list should be renamed ‘atlarge’ – the above being subjected to technical viability, subject to not losing the entire archive of any list.”
Alan: I… Okay.
Nick: Is that…?
Alan: The only error in that is the current ALAC-Internal list should not be current use but for truly confidential use.
Nick: You use…
Alan: “Current use” implies we’re going to keep on using it as our main list.
Nick: “…which will be used only for confidential conversation”?
Alan: Yes.
Nick: “Confidential matters” I’ll put. Okay.
Alan: Well, we’re defining the term “confidential” in this whole overall thing.
Nick: Yeah.
Cheryl: Yeah. And that definition I think should be cut and paste from the proposal.
Alan: We can add into this… No, I take it back.
Cheryl: laughter A very quick retraction, Alan. Well done.
That is the motion as stands. I call for anyone who wishes to have their name recorded as dissenting or abstaining from this important motion. pause
In the absence of that, that motion is passed.
Alan: And I would like to thank the committee for allowing us to finalize something which if I remember correctly was initiated in Los Angeles.
Cheryl: I think you remember absolutely accurately. Well done indeed.
Alan: I thank you.
Cheryl: I thank you, Alan.
Izumi?: 07
Cheryl: It’s been one of many marathons you’ve run for us.
The matter of mailing list moderation is one of a fairly large and important matter. I would like to propose that we have a single-purpose call – a short, nevertheless single-purpose call to discuss that in greater detail. Any modifications to our rules of procedure, 37 what is or is not reasonable use, will be discussed then. And I would like to ensure that not only the ALAC but the Regional At-Large Organizational representatives and secretariats are invited to that call, and any wider At-Large-interested person also could be welcomed. That is how I would like 03 moderation. Is that something that the ALAC wishes to pursue, or do they wish to work on that in the four minutes that we have left?
Sébastien: I support your proposal – Sébastien speaking.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Sébastien.
Alan: He spoke already.
Sébastien: It’s just to say that I support your proposal that we have a specific meeting on that subject.
Cheryl: Thank you, Sébastien. We will make that so.
The “Items for Discussion Only” as listed in tonight’s agenda are again something that we need to have the representatives from the RALOs on the ALAC take particular note of. This is work that needs to be in the awareness-raising work you do in your Regional At-Large Organizations and ALSes. They are the current public consultation for response from At-Large, which has a listing of only four – I thought there was more, but four is probably enough.
We have the “IDNC Working Group Final Report” – the public comment period there ends 15th of August. The IDN working group of the ALAC will obviously be putting something in, but I would not only encourage, I would expect an input individually from ALSes or individuals, but certainly from the Regional At-Large Organizations to either contribute to that working group’s final reports or to go in independently.
The same can be said for the “RAA Amendments Draft Proposed Changes,” which has an ending date of the 4th of August. And we have nobody on this call who’s involved in that working group – is that correct, Nick?
Nick: On the RAA Amendments?
Cheryl: Correct. Beau, are you…?
Alan: I thought Beau was.
Cheryl: Yeah. Beau…
Nick: Yeah, Beau is…
Cheryl: Beau, you’re doing RAA, aren’t you?
Nick: Beau is leading that effort and he asked me in Paris that we should organize a briefing from relevant staff and members who are concerned on this, so now that he’s back I’m going to work with him to organize that.
Cheryl: Excellent. And I think it’s essential that the RALO representatives on the ALAC ensure that they have as many participants as possible from their regional areas and ALSes in that very important piece of work and we must have… 52
Alan: Can I ask a question related to what you just said?
Cheryl: You certainly may. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: Talking about the RALO people, the chairs and secretariats, are they normally invited to these meetings or not?
Cheryl: Uh, they’re…
Nick: Yes.
Cheryl: …always welcome but we actually have elected people from each region who are the ALAC. So in the case of Asia-Pacific, Izumi and I will ensure that… 17
Alan: No, no, no. That’s not the question I’m asking.
Cheryl: Are they invited? The answer is yes… overtalking
Alan: At this point we’re paying for their transport to ICANN meetings. The question is are they explicitly invited and asked and expected to be at these meetings, the meetings, the teleconference calls, or not? Because in general, they’re not, and I wonder are we making it clear that they are welcome or not? I just… It’s a point of information.
Cheryl: Well, there’s two things: welcome is clear, the expectation is far from mandatory.
Alan: Okay.
Nick: May I make one comment related to the RAA amendments item?
Cheryl: Please go ahead.
Nick: The consultation ends on the 4th of August. However, the RAA, the agreement, the legal agreement has previously been available only in English. Translations of a legal quality, though not usable in court, are being prepared of the original RAA and the redlined text as well as the other elements of the consultation. As soon as those are available in Spanish and French and the other languages, I will let everyone know. I understand that the consultation for those languages will continue for some time after they are posted.
Cheryl: Excellent.
Nick: I will let everyone know what precisely the situation is there. May I suggest… There are translations of the IDNC final report which are imminently to arrive, and there is the RAA amendments. May I suggest that ALAC sends in a statement just making clear that there may be comments from LACRALO in particular on the RAA once Spanish editions are available of the document.
Cheryl: Okay.
Nick: Or in some ways makes clear that, you know, ALAC understands that each language will have some time to respond, regardless of when the closing date is.
Cheryl: Certainly, Nick, and I think we need to just ensure that that is 40 again with the information call, but also that Beau takes that onboard as the lead.
Beau: Yeah, can I just ask for a clarification there? This is Beau. Did you say that the… Because the comment period ends pretty quickly – like it’s August 4th, I think, right? So…
Nick: Yeah.
Cheryl: Correct.
Beau: So they’re going to extend, they’re actually going to extend the comment period for those who need the translations? Or how is it… is that clear to people who need translation?
Nick: That is my understanding. I have yet to confirm it with Tim. Needless to say, the briefing that is done by the staff when – you know, I’ll call you whenever you like, Beau, to sort of coordinate on that…
Beau: Okay.
Nick: …will be recorded in Spanish and in French, so that may help, but I think we would probably want to have… up to you, you would probably want to have the briefing. We could either have the briefing before the documents are available in those languages or we could have it after they become available.
Beau: Yeah, I…
Nick: Unfortunately I don’t yet have an ETA on when they will be finished.
Beau: Okay. Well, yeah, if you want to consult on that in the next day or two, I have some pretty strong feelings on it, so…
Nick: Okay.
Beau: …whenever you like, I’ll give you a ring.
Cheryl: Thank you, Beau. Can we leave that ball firmly in your court and ensure that as many of us as possible get as many people as practical to the briefings that you’re organizing?
Beau: Sure.
Cheryl: That leads us to Item 3 under the consultations, which is “Improving Institutional Confidence.” This is the post-JPA. This ends next week on the 31st of July. May I undertake that I think it’s essential that we make some comment and ask the ALAC exactly how it would like the comment to be created in short order? pause
I’m met with deathly silence. My suggestions would then be that this may perhaps be a role for the… I was going to suggest the executive, but I’d like it to be wider than the executive. Can I call for…
Nick?: Cheryl?
Cheryl: Can I call for people to mute their phones by using star-6? And then can I call for any volunteers to assist in the creation of a response to improving institutional confidence to work with the executive before July 31 closing date?
Nick: Cheryl?
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Nick: I might be able to help you here.
Cheryl: I’d love you to. Thank you, Nick.
Nick: If one looks, I believe you will find that it is still the case that there are actually no public comments at all…
Cheryl: Yes, I know.
Nick: …posted on this subject. I think that there’s an easy explanation for that, which is that it’s a holiday period immediately following an ICANN meeting and there were recently a number of public consultations open.
Cheryl: An enormous amount.
Nick: I am quite sure that if you wish to make a statement to Kieran or even to the public comment 25 saying that, “At-Large does intend to make comments on this subject, but because of holidays and the like, will not be able to do so until after the 31st of July.” I suspect you will find that a reply would come saying, “Your comments will be taken when they’re ready and we’ll be glad to have them.”
Cheryl: Umm…
Nick: I mean technically you can make comments as the advisory committee at any time.
Cheryl: I was going to say we can do that at any time we damn well please anyway.
Nick: Yeah. I would just say I don’t think you… This is by way of saying I don’t think you have to kill yourselves to make it by the 31st of July.
Cheryl: I appreciate that Nick, and it may be that we end up doing that, but by the same token, we are all busy and we all continue to be busy, and I’m not sure that the middle of August, when we have a number of other consultations running is going to be an any better time. So I would like to call for volunteers to contribute, to work with the ALAC executive, otherwise you will be leaving it up to the ALAC executive to do the drafting. pause Alright. In the absence of volunteers, some of you may find a telephone call or e-mail message trying to press-gang you into something, so beware.
We will move on. I would like to note that we are six minutes past our closing time. Alan, are you still available for another couple of moments? Yes or no?
Alan: I’m here, but I was going to ask that anything that requires my input be done sooner rather than later.
Cheryl: Okay. We’re going to wrap it up as far as we can as quickly as we can. The other consultations, the GNSO improvements we’ve covered. We need to note several listed here. We cannot respond to everything. Which of those have closing dates that are closest, you know, simply won’t get done I suspect, but can I ask that a lot more work is done proactively when the list comes out from Denise on what is going on in public consultations in the ALSes and at the regional level so that the ALAC representatives from the regions come to these meetings with informed information – oh, sorry, that’s a stupid term, two words that mean the same thing – well-informed on what the local and regional views are on these matters? I’d like to leave that matter for both online and continuing work – that will be a carryover item for our next meeting. Unless anyone objects? pause
In which case, we will move on to the requirement of an At-Large Community representative to work on the GNSO Working Group on Fast Flux Hosting. This does not necessarily have to come from the ALAC itself, but it would be I think a wise move to have someone on the ALAC involved.
Alan: It’s Alan. I had had a request from Mohamed, whether we could have someone from his RALO participating, and although it took me a little while, I got permission on that but I haven’t heard anything back from him, so I assume it’s not happening.
Cheryl: Does Hawa know anything more about that, coming from the same RALO? pause
Alan: She wasn’t included in the e-mail, so she may not.
Cheryl: Okay. Can we take that off-line, because it would be very useful perhaps if we can just double-check? If we have a willing participant, I would obviously like to pursue that line.
Alan: I’m not sure if he had a willing participant or he was asking about the possibility – it wasn’t clear from the note.
Cheryl: Well, if you put your hand up, you’ll probably get elected around here, so let’s pursue that and double-check and see if we can wrap that up. We’ll talk further tomorrow night about that if you like. But we do need to have a designation of someone from the At-Large Community to work on the fast flux, and I would like to press for a specific ALAC representative there. So you have the commission, we need to fill the space. We’ll double-check with Mohamed.
Translator: There’s a question from Hawa.
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Translator: She would like to know what this representative from the At-Large Community would do? What would be the purpose of his being appointed?
Cheryl: Thank you for that question. Alan, as the GNSO Liaison, can you respond? Thank you.
Alan: I think the answer is simply is to be one of the group of people looking at the issue and trying to decide what if any action should be taken.
Cheryl: 50
Nick: May I note that if you click the link on the agenda page, you will find the charter of the working group.
Cheryl: Did you pick that up on the French channel, that the hyperlink on the agenda page will give her all the information she requires? But it is a participation…
Translator: Could you say that again? Could you say that again, please?
Cheryl: Certainly. The link on the agenda page will take her to all the information required, the charter for that working group, but the role of the representative would be to be a participant in that working group.
Alan: I’ll say that of the various working groups that come and go, this is not one that is of dire interest to At-Large. The next one, for instance, I think is one that’s far more applicable to individuals than the fast flux one is.
Cheryl: And yet we had great interest when we did our fast flux briefing, so…
Alan: I understand.
Translator: Let me say some-… Excuse me for interrupting.
Cheryl: No, no. Go ahead.
Translator: You know, Hawa is not able to connect to the internet so she would appreciate if you could make a little summary of what the reason for representative and his role would be.
Cheryl: Certainly. Sébastien, when Sébastien speaks to Hawa on other matters after this call, he will cover that off in detail, won’t you, Sébastien?
Sébastien: I will.
Cheryl: Thank you.
Alan: laughter
Cheryl: The final matter under policy development work which is active, which was a segue from Alan, is the “Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy,” and we need a designation of an At-Large Community representative for that working group. And again, that is a live link to the… I believe to the charter and the background information. Do we have any volunteers or suggestions for someone to do that work for us? To lead that work for us – we will support you, obviously. pause
Well, somebody’s done something on Skype. Sébastien, you are a scholar and a gentleman! He has just nominated himself, and I will be very quick to say, “That is excellent” and “Thank you very much.” Would anybody like to compete with Sébastien for this matter? I didn’t think so.
Alan: laughter
Cheryl: Thank you, Sébastien.
The final matter is the “ccNSO Proposal to Review Geographic Regions using a Cross-Constituency Working Group.” Obviously this is a matter of great interest to us and we must be involved, but we also need to start getting the ALS and regional views formulated and integrated into statements from their local areas.
Alan: Okay. Cheryl, I strongly support this. We do need active work. I have to drop out. Thank you all for the meeting.
Cheryl: Thank you, Alan. And in fact unless you had any other business, that was it.
Alan: No. I strongly support it. I’d like to see us active in this. It’s not going to be me. And I leave you to it. Bye-bye.
Nick: Bye, Alan.
Cheryl: We’ll talk an hour earlier tomorrow, correct?
Nick: Cheryl?
Alan Greenberg left
Cheryl: Thank you. Go ahead, Nick.
Nick: I just wanted that the current stage of this item on geographic regions is that the board is asking if having a community-wide working group to review the structure of ICANN’s regions is a good idea. It is not at this point a working group.
Cheryl?: 12… overtalking
Nick: It would be inaudible in a way similar to the IDNC working group with representatives from all constituencies in ICANN. That is the idea. So at this point all that ALAC would need to do is say, “Yes, Denise, we think that this is a good idea.”
Cheryl: And ALAC will say, “Yes, Denise, we think this is a good idea.” What I am calling for is the ALSes and the regions to start work now. The members here need to go back to their regions and to their ALSes and say, “If this goes ahead, we need to be prepared for it.” We want to move to a proactive rather than a reactive model. So the executive will be saying yes, but we also need work to start now rather than this catch up that seems to be going on at the moment.
Translator: Cheryl, there’s a question.
Cheryl: Yeah. Go ahead, Hawa.
Translator: Cheryl?
Cheryl: Yes.
Translator: Cheryl? Cheryl?
Sébastien?: 14. Go ahead. Go ahead.
Translator: There is a question regarding Item 2, regarding Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. You know, what is the… Who was the representative that was chosen?
Cheryl: Sébastien.
Sébastien: Sébastien.
Translator: Oh, it was Sébastien. Okay. Thank you. 35
Sébastien: 39
Cheryl: Thank you, Sébastien. Okay. I’m now calling for any other business. I note that whilst we have the 90 minutes from our quorate start time, we are 16 minutes over our actual start time, and I would like to suggest that anyone with any other business make it short and succinct. pause
And in the absence of anybody making any other business known, please ensure that we work online between now and our next meeting. Please take my personal thanks for the enormous amount of work that was done at the Paris meeting and has continued by many of you between now and that meeting. And thank you very much for your time and your energy today. We have a number of briefings that will be going on and a number of working group and consultation works that will be going on between now and our next meeting. I note that two… no, three of the consultations will be closing before our next meeting, which will be, I believe, on the 12th of August – is that correct?
Nick: I believe that is correct. I’m just checking now.
Cheryl: So we 13 able to…
Nick: Indeed, the 12th of August.
Cheryl: We’ll look forward to an RAA briefing in short for that, and our work will continue online.
Thank you all.
Sébastien: I just wanted to thank you, Cheryl, because if we’re here, it’s because it’s you lead us to this place. Thank you very much.
Cheryl: laughter Ah, Sébastien, it is not a matter of leadership at all. I’m quite sure it’s a joint team effort of the enthusiasm we all have to move ALAC from what I think is a very strong position now to an even stronger one in the future. But getting the ALSes and the RALOs to a proactive rather than a reactive model is work we must all do together.
Thank you all, and please remember that any changes you are making to the approved minutes need to be done as a comment button, but that we work in a wiki and that is a collaborative space.
Good morning, good evening, good night, and good day to you all.
Thu Hue?: Thank you, good night.
Izumi?: Good-bye.
Nick: Bye all.
End of Audio