Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Welcome to the 6th of February ALAC Improvements Implementation Taskforce call. When I last looked as I was setting up an agenda for this call, neither the summary of minutes nor the action items had been updated on the pages that I linked to. Can I ask if they’ve been updated now, and if so, if someone would take us through them, please?
Heidi Ullrich: Cheryl, this is Heidi and I see that the summary minutes from the last call are there but I don’t see the action items. And Matt, I’ve just asked whether there are any and whether you could post them very quickly so we can go through them.
Matt Ashtiani: I have my notes. If you’ll give me a few seconds I can go through them.
Heidi Ullrich: Can you say that again please?
Matt Ashtiani: Hello?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, go ahead, Matt.
Matt Ashtiani: Cheryl, I have some notes. If you’ll give me a few minutes I can look through everything and get back to you in just…less than five minutes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay then. I’m unaware of any outstanding action items which have not been addressed so perhaps we can come back to that later in the call if we need to; in other words, if there’s something that needs to be brought to our attention for the record then just raise it for us please, Matt. And thank you for getting the summary minutes up. As I say, a couple of hours ago when I checked at about my local time 2:00 AM, 2:30 AM I couldn’t see them and obviously they’ve been uploaded now. Thank you for that.
One simple question: we have now confirmed, Heidi, the time and duration of the Taskforce Workshop. Have we heard back from the SIC?
Heidi Ullrich: No, we have not yet. But again, the tentative time for the SIC meeting with the Taskforce in Costa Rica is Thursday 11:00 to 11:45. I would expect that that is going to be the time but we don’t have confirmation yet.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, alright. So we’ll still leave that as a “we need to confirm.” Alright, so if there’s no more administrivia we need to cover and Matt will alert us if there’s any open action item that we need to discuss, let’s dive straight into today’s thrill-packed and exciting adventure which is still in Work Team C Recommendation 5. They have Recommendation 5 and 6 under Work Team C.
And I did change in the minutes, if anyone is pedant enough to be looking at the agendas as they’ve gone on through the last couple of weeks with Work Team C’s recommendations, I made a change to the “record” for today’s call by shifting the terminology from “strategic and operational planning” with Recommendation 5 to “strategic, financial and operational planning.” And I thought it was probably important as we move to reporting with the SIC that we note somewhere in our report that of course with the change of how ICANN is doing its own creation of its strategic and operational plan since the ALAC Improvements work first recommended that in 2008-09, that our own terminology needs to shift I would think in our final reporting phase.
So I think from now on if we cluster, which is going to be something we’ll find in a moment or two as we get to the report on financial analysis and planning process – if we cluster the terminologies in our reporting and in our future activities, and of course in our implementation between strategic, financial and operational planning, I think that will neaten everything up. Is there any discussion on that suggestion? If no one objects to that we’ll make it a note. Go ahead, Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, Cheryl. I would like you to repeat the change you proposed because you added “financial.” Did you add it to the strategic or did you add a new planning thing?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, Tijani, in Recommendation 5 from Work Team C it separated out, the titling separated out its recommendations between just strategic and operational planning processes and secondly the cost modeling. Now, cost modeling is still separate because that’s Recommendation 6, but what we didn’t seem to address in the titling of the recommendations from Work Team C is the fact that it’s really – and these days is – strategic, financial and operational planning. And that’s of course where we’ve had the duplication in the operational and strategic strengths and weaknesses analysis, and today we’re going to be doing exactly the same thing again: having a rerun basically of SWOT in the financial planning aspects. So I’m hoping to weave them all together rather than have them as three separate threads.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Is there a follow-up on that, then, Tijani?
Okay, alright. Hopefully we can get through some of these fairly quickly because of the way that things are now being done, and the first one that we should be starting with today is “In attempting to get the ALAC outreach projects funded, emphasize their role not only as a strategic resource benefiting the ALAC and RALOs but also as…” – whoever did that can now stop it, thank you – “…and also as part of a wider ICANN legitimacy process.”
This is something that I think for the last two if not three cycles ALAC has been very good at doing, and the regions certainly in the last cycle and this current cycle have attended to quite well. But I see Olivier. Go ahead, Olivier.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl. I had actually my hand up to ask that somebody stops moving the document around and unlinks it, or un-synchronizes it so that we can actually move around the document. But I see that this has been done so that was just the reason for me putting my hand up. But now I can’t find what you’re talking about because of course we were [dropped immediately].
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, so if you got left any other place – if you go to the top of Page 7 of the document…
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Page 7, ah, here we go.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, and you’ll see on the third box down…
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Super, thanks very much, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s no problem. It’s Line Item 10 under the full listing. So I believe that we should probably be able to move this to completed with the asterisk of what we’ve done before, and that is noting that the new methodology for strategic, financial and operational planning in ICANN is a far more effective integration than we were having when the implementation recommendations were made. Go ahead, Olivier.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Cheryl; it’s Olivier for the transcript. Just a quick mention of the fact that in this year’s FY13 requests we had actually made it quite widely known for several of the projects that we believe they would benefit ICANN as a whole; the ICANN Academy, for example, is one thing that comes to mind. So rather than “in progress” I wonder whether this could actually be just a formal recommendation for the planning that will be part of our formal recommendations for future generations doing planning for ALAC, and then mark this as “completed?” Or do you still think it needs to stay “in progress?”
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No, no, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think it absolutely should be saying “completed” but with the footnote that it is completed with the current mechanism that ICANN is using. Should the mechanism change then obviously we would have to pay attention to detail on this in the future. Go ahead, Olivier.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl, it’s Olivier. So in line with this, and knowing that we have rules and procedures that are written down, are you aware of any document that is written down as a set of best practices for people in the future that will be dealing with the Finance and Budget Subcommittee of At-Large?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Olivier, an excellent question and no, at this stage there is not. However, the opportunity for the about-to-begin Rules Of Procedure Review Team would be to also look at a set of standard operational procedures. And as part of what would be a folder I guess, a virtual and possibly even real folder somewhere, things like the current data of implementation and the recommendations from our first review would need to be filed, and that way you can also track that things were not dropped – the stitches weren’t dropped – in the future.
One of the problems at the moment would be with the annual changes that we’ve seen with the form of even application for outreach activities. But one of the solutions would be if the current form in any year was appended to the section of the standard operational procedures and advice – that would work quite successfully. What you should do, however, is hold all the old versions and simply mark them as superseded; a little bit the same way as a pilot needs to keep their procedures, their manuals up-to-date you never actually take anything out – it’s just marked as superseded.
Sala, I see you ask that you don’t see how it has been completed, and I’d like to welcome a number of other people who’ve joined the call. We have Beau, we have Rudi, we have Titi, we have Yrjo have all joined the call so again we’re well represented in all five regions. Sala, please tell us how when we currently have had two years of outreach activities requests specifically tied to the ICANN strategic planning four pillars as part of the rationale why this is not completed.
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: I’m trying to see them and pull them up on this… Can you hear me? Sala for the record.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, go ahead.
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro: Yes, I was trying to hear the both of you but for a minute there was some static interference. I’m not sure but I think it’s from a now-muted microphone. I just wanted to thank you for what you’re both saying. Are you referring to actual planning or actual tasks?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Certainly. Let me recap for you, Sala. When the ALAC Review happened there was a very different operational, financial, and strategic planning process that ICANN was using, and ALAC and the At-Large community were very much at arm’s length – I think that’s a better word we can say – to that process.
There’s a totally new mechanism now, but Work Team C recommended that what the ALAC needs to do is ensure that any request, any time we are making an outreach program request which is usually an additional funding request such as the round that you were involved with from the RALOs; that those requests should emphasize that these outreach projects are not just strategic resources benefiting ALAC and the RALOs, but that it is also a very important part of the wider ICANN legitimacy process – and in many cases we would be seeing that it would be tied back either to the pillars of the strategic plan of ICANN or to aspects from the Affirmation of Commitments.
So the recommendation, which is the implementable, is that when we make a request for outreach that we remember to always pitch it as not just self-centered but more widely contributive to ICANN as a whole. Is that clearer?
I see that she said “I see” so I take it that that’s slightly clearer, in which case as Olivier was suggesting we should be able to say that this is completed; but make sure that should things change in the future, should the mechanism of input change or any other aspect we need to make sure we don’t lose it. Go ahead, Olivier.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl, it’s Olivier for the transcript. I was going to suggest an action item coming out of this box if this box is to be marked as “completed,” the action item being to give it as a task to the future Rules of Procedure Working Group to tackle this and to make this a hardwired if you want recommendation for best practice.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure. If I could just encourage you, Olivier, to – and I say this with vested interest as Chair of that Rules of Procedure Review Team – not to use the terminology “best practice” because it’s very grey and it’s hard if you don’t have a best practice benchmark. But in this case I would suggest that we start with standard operational procedures and then those can be superseded and changed. And they may lead to best practice but I think it’s too early to use the terminology “best practice.”
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl, it’s Olivier. You may call it whatever you wish to call it. You might want to call it “dog’s breakfast” – I’m fine with it as long as it does what it’s supposed to do.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: [laughing] Okay, the action item out of that is the ongoing maintenance of this implementable into the Rules of Procedure Review Team to ensure that the processes are hardwired into the DNA of ALAC and At-Large. Does that put it right then, Olivier? Okay, I see a big check from Olivier so that’s good. Well, if we’ve satisfied the Chair hopefully we can move on.
And the next one is an already completed one, which is acknowledge and encourage continuation of the better collaboration between ALAC and ICANN Finance staff in the 2012 budget. I think we’ve already mentioned that in the report we will be noting the improved nature of the collaborative process between the Finance and the Planning and the Strategic Planning departments in ICANN, and all of the ICANN stakeholders but in particular changes in our own interactions there.
Moving to the following item, which is conduct periodic SWOT – strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat – analyses of the At-Large operational and financial planning process in conjunction with the RALOs as Work Team C did. Can I encourage us to treat this in exactly the same way as we have treated the other SWOT analysis recommendations – in other words, wrap the financial planning process aspects into the same stages and [portal] as we have the operational and strategic planning ones? Does anyone object to that? I see a big check from Olivier and no X’s or objections from anyone, so let’s put that to “substantially completed” if not complete and treat it in exactly the same way; and I see many more checks coming in there as well.
This moves us to the next item on our listing from Work Team C Recommendation 5 which is formalize the process by which the ALAC collects operational demands from the RALOs and includes them in its operational plans. This is another one which we can say is completed in two ways: first of all, we can report on the modification of the standing subcommittee of the ALAC from being an ALAC-only Budget and Finance Subcommittee to one with integrated Regional At-Large Organizational input as a standing committee; and the current process by which at least this year and last year we’ve had additional requests coming in directly from the Regional At-Large Organizations.
Olivier, am I correct in presuming this is another one of those with the same AI on hardwiring it into the standard operational procedure needs to be noted?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here and I agree with you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, in which case we can treat that as we have the item #2 above it so it gets wrapped in with the same AI for the Rules of Procedure Review Team and is now marked as complete.
Now, here we have an interesting one: clearly estimate and document time required for the ALAC’s operational processes – for example, responding to a call for public comments – and use these estimates to formalize its operational processes. Currently listed as “in progress”… I would have loved to have been able to say this was complete but with the change of, for example, the public comment reply and response to reply phase this is something that’s almost taken a potential step backward.
So we need to deal with the nature of change ICANN-wide on this, but a number of the processes, the operational processes, are captured in the rules of procedure and are indeed either being alluded to or well-documented in various flow charts that were developed by Dave in the Work Teams that he was involved with. So I’d suggest that we’ve got the estimates for a number of the operational procedures and processes there; what we don’t have is a place where all of those are captured in a single space. And perhaps that’s something else you might want to have punted over to the Rules Of Procedure Review Team. Olivier?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here. I’m not quite sure – did you just ask a question there?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I did.
[crosstalk]
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: …response with public comments but we’ve actually done the estimates so that has now actually been completed. We know how long it will take us – longer than we’ve got. What we don’t have is that same collection point that I would have thought the Rules of Procedure Team should be making sure they’re collected and hardwired into the DNA.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here. Yes, two things: of course they have to be hardwired into the DNA. At the same time, I’m a little concerned about hardwiring exact timings immediately because we are yet to find out if the new timings that the public comments process which now provides only 21 days for initial comments and then another 21 days for all the responses to comments, which is a little bizarre but anyway… These are currently being tested out so there is an ongoing process here and I’m not sure whether the current 21 plus 21 days will be kept by the public comments process or if that will change. So if we decide to hardwire specific timings in our DNA we might have to amend this hardwiring again in the near future, possibly before this process is over.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely, and that’s why I did say at the beginning that where I would have normally said this should be in “completed” I think we should be saying it’s substantially completed but “in progress depending on current changes in ICANN processes. But yes, it will always have to be responsive to changes in how ICANN does things, but that should only change the timing – not the process.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Correct, Cheryl, although the process that we have built so far, thanks to Dev’s great diagrams – the process looks at a single cycle. It doesn’t look at this double cycle.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Mm-hmm. But I think what we can then do is largely for our formal record of operational procedure, which is currently in a pre-reply/respond public comment world as captured in the flowcharts from Work Team C and as accepted as a good working model for operational activities by ALAC and At-Large, and then we say “However, with the current changes on public comments this needs to be reviewed.” I don’t want to put pressure on changing that flowchart before our Costa Rica reporting because that would be impractical but what we can say is “Here as you know is what was pre-reply/respond cycle and we are now about to modify it to match when ICANN has responded to…” I thought you were also writing to Filiz and seeing if we can tweak that anyway.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, that’s correct, Cheryl. I am planning to write to Filiz sometime this week, and it’s Olivier for the transcript. I’m planning to write sometime this week because of the fact that 21 days is just very, very short for us – in fact, too short for us to be able to conduct proper feedback and a proper process. So we will be sticking to our 30 days or 31 days so far, and I’m writing her to find out which way we can go forward and how to formalize this one way or another. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And just on that – Cheryl for the transcript record – I think it’s important for the community to note and for us recognize is that it may be appropriate, Olivier, for you to remind Filiz and the rest of the senior staff involved in this that this is an Affirmation of Commitments Review Team implementation ICANN-wide issue and at no point did we put small numbers of days associated with it. The Affirmation of Commitments Review Team, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team actually made very clear what it wanted was a two-step process; not that that two-step process should be put into the existing timeline, so there is no impediment on it being something that is workable for the community because of what the Review Team put in their recommendation. Go ahead, Olivier.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here. The process actually currently specifies a minimum period of 21 days but it seems from looking at the various calls for comments that have been published ever since the beginning of the year that at every occasion staff uses that minimum timing. So I can understand the eagerness to have those public comment periods filed through before the deadline of Costa Rica but at the same time I do find it disturbing to see that the minimum period is used at every opportunity possible – and this is what I shall convey to Filiz.
That said, when the last testing was done about the public comments, and Filiz had put together a little working group for these things, we had several people from At-Large that were drafted in her Review Team. And I’m just saying this from memory, I will try to find through my records who were those people and find out from them what was the reason for the 21 days to be chosen as such and perhaps they would have had some insights that they can share with us before I write to Filiz. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you. Rudi was on that team; I know I was certainly on that team; Dev was on that team and Eduardo was on that team and all active, and I’m not sure – I think Tijani may or may not have been. But I don’t think the team ever suggested 21 days. Olivier, would you cede to Tijani since you’ve had the microphone an amount of time? Go ahead, Tijani, then back over to you, Olivier.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, Olivier, the 21 days is a minimum. This is not a close time. I think it is perhaps a close time for the minimum because for example, for the New gTLD Support Program we sent the final results to the comment and then we wanted to shorten this period. So the minimum of 21 days is okay, but the problem is that the staff is using always the minimum period. That’s the problem.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed, Tijani, a point that Olivier I’m sure will be making in his message to Filiz. Olivier, did you wish to have the floor?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: No thanks, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here. I’m fine and I’m taking notes at the moment. So thank you very much, Tijani, for this note and I shall work with Filiz on this during the rest of this week. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We need to temper their enthusiasm for the shortest amount of time possible and make it practical instead. Okay, alright, so we’re clear on where we’ll be going with that one and that is that it will be substantially completed, full, and we will make the point that of course as ICANN requirements change ALAC operational processes need to be flexible but that we have over the last three years formalized a whole set of operational processes and that they are currently being hardwired into either the rules of procedure and/or the operational procedures. And we can just mention the activities and the AIs that have been moved into your Work Team, Olivier.
Okay, and as I did note earlier in the chat that staff is suggesting we make these 5A, 5B, 5C, etc. – yes, I couldn’t agree more. I think the nomenclature needs to be modified to make it more usable. The nomenclature was relevant earlier on but it does need modifying now.
So with your permission we can move to the next one remembering, of course – and you might want to just remind… Sorry, just let me backtrack for a moment, Olivier. You might just remind Filiz that the Board accepted the recommendation from the ALAC Improvements Review Team, both the independent reviewer and the Board Governance Committee Review Team, that ALAC has the right to a 45-day extension anytime it pleases and that was in a single-cycle world. So perhaps Filiz could be threatened by the fact that we could technically demand a 45-day (inaudible). And that of course was based on a single cycle so I wouldn’t actually think that 45 x 2 is required but we certainly have a Board resolution accepting our ability to extend it to 45. So yes, a bit of a stick as well as a carrot if you’d like to use it, Olivier.
Okay, next one is continue requesting face-to-face funded general assemblies – Gas – for each RALO every three years and an At-Large Summit, which is badly written because it doesn’t actually say the frequency of the At-Large Summit and it almost sounds like that should be every three years as well. I believe we could call that completed, Olivier, but would it be possible to link your ALAC under current discussion pathway – is it a pathway document you’ve recently produced?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl. In Australian it might be a “pathway”; in English it is a roadmap.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Roadmap, sorry dear – I knew it had something to do with tracking. [laughing]
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: But in Australia as we all know you don’t have roads, you have paths. So that’s the equivalent.
[laughter]
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ahh, very funny. Go ahead, Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, Cheryl, I don’t think it is completed because the requests are done but we still don’t have it approved. So we continue [working]. We continue because we don’t have the final approval.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I hear what you’re saying, Tijani – we are continuing. We have agreed in principle and in action to continue requesting the GAs. I think if we refer to the roadmap document then the implementation from our side is in fact complete, remembering we have to accomplish all our implementables by June, pending a standing action item to continue to request until we get it.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Exactly, thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. So Olivier, it might be helpful if you could let us know perhaps sometime between now and I guess the drop dead date for sending the report to the SIC if the roadmap document is in a form where we can appropriately reference or append it. But even in its less finalized form I would like to reference it in the report to the SIC. Go ahead, Olivier.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl. The roadmap document has actually been sent to Finance and is in a final form, including explanations as to what its basis is. However, there hasn’t been any feedback yet from Finance with regards to that roadmap and whether that will be pursued or as a basis for our discussions with Finance. And therefore I should recommend perhaps that we leave this in progress for the time being prior to sending this to the SIC. We will probably find out an answer to this by Costa Rica when we’ll be face-to-face.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, fair enough. Can I split hairs and language with you and ask that it me at least listed as “substantially completed,” not “fully completed?”
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes Cheryl, I wouldn’t have any disagreement with this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, alright. I’m trying to tidy up the table for the report as you may have noticed. Okay, let’s move on to our next one then which is “Continue to monitor at the level of needed staff support and ICANN’s commitment to and progress in filling open staff positions.” As of September 11, 2011 all allocated staff positions have since filled which I think meant that we can call that completed but I will ask for Heidi’s input here. I believe that we should be able to say that this is complete but it’s complete with a proviso I would have thought. Go ahead, Heidi.
Heidi Ullrich: Hi, thank you Cheryl; this is Heidi for the transcript. Yes, I mean this one is completed as stated but again, as we have increasing work within the working groups of At-Large, as we have continuous increases in numbers of ALSes, etc., that might need to be monitored to ensure that the At-Large community is getting staff support sufficient for its growing activities.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed. So I think this is one where whilst we can say it is completed inasmuch as staffing levels pre-2009 have now been maintained and ongoing needs of the community in terms of staff support will be a matter for continuing monitoring between the Chair of the ALAC and the Executive Committee and the Director of At-Large. Obviously it’s your job then to take any issues back into ICANN with any requests. Olivier, go ahead.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here. May I ask whether it might be a good idea to include the number of staff in our metrics which will be compounded in the future and which will of course include the number of ALSes, etc., thus being able to track the growth of staff versus amount of work that needs to be done?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You’re suggesting to punt that to the KPIs and Metrics Subcommittee?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Indeed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, that’s an AI that needs to be done; and it’s something that I would also suggest needs to be hardwired in as an operational procedure as well because otherwise that monitoring can drop. But I think it is important that in our reporting we remind them in a not too subtle way that all we’ve managed to achieve is pre-2009 staffing levels; and we might point out how many ALSes were there at that point in time and how many (inaudible) statements needed to be produced in that year and compare it to shall we say June 2012, end of 2011 through June of 2012 in our final report?
We just need to make sure we capture those metrics. Matt, you may want to make that as a bit of a standing AI between now and Costa Rica, and then also to make sure we pick it up again for the final June reporting.
Okay, moving on then to “Continue to encourage ICANN to prioritize and increase funding for outreach activities.” Is it just me or can we perhaps link that with the aforementioned item further up in this chart and perhaps blend those two together with a continuation and encouragement to have increased ICANN funding for outreach activities and that the outreach activities are emphasized to not just benefit the ALAC and RALOs but also ICANN, etc., etc.? What’s the view on blending those two together, moving those two together? Does anyone object on that?
I see no objections in which case we can give them both the same status and the same action item associated with them. Good, and I’m looking rather excited about finishing Recommendation 5 off here with the final matter, which is “Continue to assist the RALOs in completing the annual ICANN requests for funding as needed in terms of writing, packaging and advocacy.”
Again, this is another one of those that I think we can probably weave it back up with the matter raised higher in the table and blend that one with the operationalizing of how we get the [exception] or additional funding requests back from the RALOs; and note that with the standing Budget and Finance Subcommittee’s changes that the writing, packaging, and advocacy role is in fact now in a standing subcommittee of the ALAC and of all of the regions. In which case we can call that one completed.
We then need to note for the report the items in Recommendation 5 not addressed, which is the Annual Support Agreement. That was one that we recognized early on in 2010 that was no longer relevant due to the 2009-2010 Operational Plan being developed in a whole new way from the ones that were done while the ALAC was under review, which means that we have completed Recommendation 5 – yahoo! Round of applause for you all.
And now Recommendation 6, which I also think we can probably get through relatively easily because a number of these things have exactly the same rider that we’ve seen with the changes of how strategic, financial, budget and operational planning is done.
So let’s now jump straight into Recommendation 6. Now I see, Beau, on this item: “Is there anything that can be done to streamline the process of filling out the forms? It’s a very labor intensive process and no sooner have you learned how to do it when [quickly] the forms change.” Okay, well we know that the new CFO and COO are very keen to have the Finance Team make it easier for us but I suppose we can certainly… It’s not actually an implementable from our review but we should perhaps make that a matter to be taken up by the Budget and Finance Subcommittee. Olivier, would you be happy for that as a side issue – an important issue, but a side issue for that to be an AI to be sent across for the BFS to attend to? Just a green tick? Okay, Beau, it looks like punting that across to the Subcommittee is the way to deal with your quite valid concern there.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: And Cheryl, as you were speaking I actually had also typed – and it’s Olivier here. I had typed “I agree with Beau” and suggested that this could be something which the Budget and Finance Subcommittee could work on.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Terrific, excellent. Alright, so with the rider that an awful lot has changed since these recommendations were done let’s move into Recommendation 6, the first one of which from Work Team C: “Work Team C proposes that the ALAC 1) encourage the same high level of input into ICANN’s annual financial planning from the ALSes and RALOs as was demonstrated in the planning in FY12.” We are now into the next cycle and I think we haven’t seen a drop of the input. In fact, if anything I think we have seen a more discussive and interactive process. Do we think we can mark this as completed but obviously needs to be reactive to any future changes? How do you want to do this? What’s your view, Olivier, since I can pick on you while you’ve [stepped out]? Go ahead, Tijani. We’ll give Olivier a break. Go ahead, Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you. I think we can mark it as completed, but as the other items we should continue and try to be very firm that our effort towards this planning system is only at the (inaudible) level.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed. Yes, I agree with you. The proposal is that 6.1 is completed, 6A is the nomenclature, with the usual rider that again, if anything changes we would need to respond.
The next one in 6 is to “Continue to encourage ICANN to increase its level of detailed disclosure regarding the processes of financing the ALAC and At-Large.” We acknowledged in this October 2011 report that they had significantly improved in 2012. It’s a little early to know whether it’s improved for the coming financial year. We could perhaps add to here with a completed status that we look forward to monitoring changes that may occur with the implementing of the new Finance package ICANN-wide. There is new Finance software being used ICANN-wide, and one of the rationales for that considerable expense and changeover was that it would allow this type of reporting to be fall more easily done and more accessible to the community.
Are you happy to have that marked as completed but with that particular rider? I see no one objecting to that and it’s something that I would suggest, Olivier, we also make sure watching this, the Budget and Finance Subcommittee should keep a watching brief on that because whilst we’ve done our bit in terms of implementation there is the other side of the coin. We need to know that what we’ve been told will happen with the new software actually does happen. Go ahead, Olivier.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here. I wonder how can we pass on this to the Finance and Budget Subcommittee? Is this an AI to be given to them or how is the information to be effectively remembered – somehow recorded and remembered and then passed on as a task?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: My immediate reaction to that, Olivier – Cheryl for the transcript record – is to say that yes it would be an AI for the Budget and Finance Subcommittee, but it would also be an AI for the Operational Procedures Review Team to ensure that the Budget and Finance Committee’s charter and operational procedures reflect it.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Okay, Olivier here for the transcript, in which case perhaps should we set those AIs and then we can mark these as being complete?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Works for me, and if anyone objects I think that’s how we go forward. I think we can make it so then, Olivier, well done. I see Dev and a few other ticks coming up. [Something else], Olivier?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Cheryl, it’s still Olivier. You will have to detail that AI for Matt to record it please.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Certainly. The two AIs for Matt as we mark it complete is that the AI for the Budget and Finance Subcommittee will have a watching brief on the reporting detail of ALAC and At-Large financing and costs from the new ICANN-wide finance accounting software. And the AI for the Operational Procedures Review Team is to ensure that the operational procedures of the Budget and Finance Subcommittee reflect that watching brief.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Excellent, thank you Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Now we’ll move to the next one which is to “Continue to monitor and…” sorry, just a moment – I’ve just realized what it said myself when I started to read it. “Continue to monitor the accommodation to At-Large representatives at ICANN meetings to be sure they are equal to those of other funded communities.” Well, we certainly are continuing to monitor. I would suggest that we certainly are. We have not dropped the ball on that.
Really, it’s a standard item but from an implementation point of view, an ALAC Improvements implementation point of view, whilst we can mark it as completed I think we need to make sure that we remind and have the ALAC continually remind particularly the changes of staff in various positions which are sensitive in Travel Support or in Meetings Planning that this is in fact an important issue, it was in fact a recommendation in the ALAC Improvements, the ALAC Review, and it is recognized as an ongoing issue that needs attention. But from our point of view we certainly can mark it as complete, but it’s one of those ALAC has to keep its finger on this, it has to watch this and it has to make sure that proactively as meetings are planned this things are considered.
Is there any discussion on that? Go ahead, Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: The items list continues to (inaudible), so I cannot say it is completed especially after the [Al’Madie] Hotel.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, excepting the action item says to “Continue to monitor,” and that’s exactly what we’re doing – continuing to monitor.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, so it isn’t completed yet. It is an ongoing thing. It is never completed if you want.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, we have to complete all these things by June. So what we have to do then, Tijani, is make sure that ALAC has an ongoing role in doing this. So…
Tijani Ben Jemaa: We have to change the formulation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, we have to change how it’s written. The responsibility will be to… Now Olivier, do you believe that this is something that could be an Executive Committee function?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes, Cheryl, it’s Olivier here. I was thinking exactly that. Certainly an Executive Committee function plus I was going to suggest the RALO in whose region the meeting is taking place due to the fact that they would be able to call upon their ALSes to tell us whether that level of accommodation is the same as the other SOs and ACs.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s an excellent pathway forward, in which case if we can capture that language from the transcript record and we make sure that the Operational Procedures Review Team take that language and make sure that it is then part of a function of the ALAC Executive in the rewriting of the Rules and Responsibilities – I think that will allow not only us to complete it but hand it off to the appropriate parties. Go ahead, Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, thank you. I don’t want it to be changing the responsibility from the staff to the RALOs. The RALOs can help, sure. They will perhaps make sure that the (inaudible) that there is understanding. But nobody knows the behavior of the staff of the hotel or what is hidden, what is not seen so we have to be careful not to put the responsibility on the RALO. The RALO can help only.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: A very valid point, Tijani. Over to you, Olivier.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Cheryl, it’s Olivier. It’s just the monitoring that we’re looking at, so obviously yes, the staff would be making the choice. The monitoring is what we need to be doing ourselves. I don’t see how the ALAC, without having any localized information about the accommodation itself would be able to actually see if Hotel A is of an equal or better standard than Hotel B short of going on specific services that you find on the internet that will provide such information.
But I felt that by suggesting that the RALO be involved, to actually continue to have much trust in our local hosts more than having trust in formalized processes that have been used so far judging from the saga that took place at the [Al’Madie]. It was just a measure… My mentioning of the RALO and the ALSes was a measure of trust of our own independent sources of information rather than resorting to second- or third-hand information. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, Cheryl for the transcript record. Here’s a way forward then, gentlemen: if we leave it as simply an Executive Committee function and we recognize that the Executive Committee of the ALAC is regionally balanced, I think that solves the problem because then it becomes a function of whatever ExCom member is from that region to liaise with local information, local community, local ALSes, whatever. But it leaves it in the ExCom.
Titi, I understand that there was more than an adequate amount of double-X chromosome owning the importance, intelligence and space in this team, but there were only two gentlemen who were arguing over this point. [laughter] Does that solve your issue, Tijani and Olivier?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right. So the AI there is it becomes an ExCom function and the AI on the Operational Procedures Review Team is to make sure it’s enshrined in ExCom responsibilities. And I am going to ask you to bear with me for two minutes longer so we can finish off Recommendation 6 with the final matter, which is to “Continue to assist the RALOs in completing their annual ICANN…” Sorry, is that one a repeat or is it just me?
Recommendation 5.6 is a repeat. It does not actually belong there. The reason that it is duplicated is that it also had an aspect of 6.1 which was the funding model, so we’ve actually already dealt with that in which case I am delighted to tell you that all of the recommendations from Work Team C have now been dealt with by the Implementation Review Team.
And I am more than happy to bring this call to a close and inform you all that next week’s thrill-packed and exciting adventure will begin with the work of Work Team B and Recommendation 7, that the ALAC should be allowed to make its own choices of communication and other collaborative tools to best meet its needs.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, staff, not that you’re not ladies and gentlemen because indeed you are. If there is any additional information that any of the staff need, action items, please just give me a ping and I will do my best to wrack through my memory banks and make sure you’ve got them [best] written down. Thank you one and all, bye for now.
[End of Transcript]
