Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, we’ve got apologies from Carlton. I think we can get going now. What have we not done? What’ve we got from the 2nd of June? We’ve got the feedback on budget and Alan did the business on the budget as well. I assume, Heidi, that Seth did get a live hookup. And we’ve looked at how the budget teleconferences, et cetera. is; we’ve been hearing from Heidi about technology issues. If we give them a log, Heidi, is it likely to work when you’re being challenged by difficulties in communication? I think we can only do what we can do. Are you talking to some other staff on this GNSO course about who have been able to log things as well?
Heidi Ulrich: I will do that. I think that’s a good idea. Also, we’re going to be having some retreats coming up as well, so perhaps we can discuss that in some depth as well.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes; it just seems to me that we’ve got a number of people saying there seems to (inaudible 2:02) or lag time issues with the Adobe Connect room. I know it’s difficult but there must be some frequently asked questions or something. Okay, moving on now to the 4th of June. We’ll have everything concluded by the 6th of June so that was all there was to do with that one. So with that I’m done. Any comments or discussion on any of them? If not, we can.
Alan Greenberg: Sebastian has his hand up.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I can’t see that. That’s interesting; it’s not showing on my screen. okay, Heidi, you can log that! Go ahead, Sebastian.
Heidi Ulrich: I can see that. Can anybody not see that except for Cheryl?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I can’t see it.
Alan Greenberg: That’s okay, Cheryl. Half the time I can’t hear you, so…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alan, you’re probably not missing out on anything important. Now I can see Sebastian’s hand up. Go ahead, Sebastian.
Sebastian Bachollet: Just about the previous item and obviously, we are going back to it. I was on the participation conference call just 15 minutes before this call and it’s important that IT solves the problem while we are here, because when it will be in Brussels using the same tool with people not just around the world but also internal, I mean people within the Adobe Connect room, they will have trouble if they don’t fix the problem now. I think it’s not just Cheryl not seeing my hand raised but also, the typing is very, very slow. I am sure that you type quicker than I could see it on my screen. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sebastian, these are points that Heidi’s already raised with IT, and IT is saying, ‘We need to log when these things happen.” Well, you know; Whoopee-do. That’s not going to make it better before Brussels. So they are seeing to some of the capabilities of the Adobe connect room when we’re in Brussels but I’m not sure they’re going to be fixing it between now and I do feel that the critical make or break testing will actually be done to the detriment of remote participation in Brussels.
Heidi, when you are talking to them it’s a point to make; we’re going to be doing a whole lot of logging to help them tie it down between now and Brussels. As a community, we’re warning them that it’s not looking good and will continue to play out and it’s going to get more challenged by the number of people involved in the room in Brussels. It’s going to be more of a problem.
Alan Greenberg: Cheryl, this follows the principle that problems only get fixed when embarrassment levels get high.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, true. To actually let it die in the ditch and we go poke sticks at it and say, “See? We told you so.” I guess that’s one way of doing it. At least we can say we told them so.
Heidi Ulrich: Cheryl, I’m going to be. In fact, I am right now contacting Rob about this issue so that he can look into that and perhaps push them a bit more for the Adobe Connect rooms that are being created for the meeting.
Sebastian Bachollet: And it’s important because it’s just there for remote participation for large bandwidth. He needs to be aware that it could not fix everything. He might say something like, ‘It will be, we are trying’ but it’s not yet totally here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And not as Heidi has pointed out a simple matter of… we can hold data in our Adobe room so other GNSO groups don’t. It’s not as functional and has often been the case, we’ve been told, or it’s not storage supporting or that we’re carrying so much data within the old files etc, etc. It’s been problematic particularly when I think what we’re asking of the Adobe room is no more than some of the basics it’s performing. Okay, As far as the advanced development, we’ve got a few things that they will be putting through the system during Brussels. Is there anything we need to discuss about that?
Alan Greenberg: I still don’t have anything on the RAA 3.7.7.3. I’ve bugged Bo a few times; I’ll do it again.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: (Inaudible 07:44) budget and for some reason my room has decided to disappear. Oh, here we go. Everything I see is tracking the work through Brussels. Anyone want to raise an issue? If not, we shall move on to the next job. We might have a record EXCOM meeting here, if we’re not careful. I’m a little surprised at the draft changes to string similarity review amendments ending on the 2nd of July. Can someone refresh my memory when that started? I thought these things happened over an ICAAN meeting automatically lengthened the amount of time they can ICAAN meeting takes over that period.
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, that is my understanding, Cheryl.
Alan Greenberg: This was a contentious one; the GNSO passed the motion, or it was trying to pass a motion to give advice to the board to fix what many of us feel is a broken applicant guidebook in regard to string similarity. There was a motion that it should be put out for public comment first. Therefore, it was identified as a link for public comment; I’m guessing… to be honest, I wasn’t focusing on it a lot because I thought it was really stupid. But it was done within a short period of time to a wide discussion at Nairobi; I think that was the main intent.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: It’s not a problem for us to reply. We can discuss it if you want. We can support it but I don’t think we need to. But we certainly can if we wish. Go ahead.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Do you think rather than us making any judgment on it now, we just raise it in the Brussels agenda and see what the mood of the room is?
Alan Greenberg: We can certainly do that. The issue is that if the initial review shows string similarity, which is visual issue, it will cause an application to be rejected. No appeal, no extended evaluation, even if the similarity was intentional and a good thing, it would cause it to be rejected, period.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s not a smart move.
Alan Greenberg: In the minds of many of us it was an omission, pure and simple. Verisign, for instance, who intends to apply to things which will be visually confusing because of IDN issues? For instance, with its own domains that it plans to have an identical tree structure on would be disallowed from doing it because of the inflexibility. That’s the issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: All right; well I think I’ll make sure that gets on the agenda of one of the meetings and see what the mood of the room is. But it probably falls under… so we don’t need to do much except fall in line or give a very simple statement.
Alan Greenberg: And let people see some significant negative reasons for allowing it;
We can either be silent or put a one-liner in saying we support it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, terrific.
Alan Greenberg: Or we can say we support it to the board after it’s put in by the GNSO; whatever.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But we really just need to make sure that it’s on the agenda rather than form some sort of particular group.
Alan Greenberg: We can certainly do that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think the line here of course, is what we’ll be needing to do during Brussels, Obviously. We will expect the work groups to be coming up with something on the DAG 4 in particular? Again, that comes in after Brussels. Okay, anything else on the adding of jobs listed in the PAD? I think none of them are heroically large jobs. From the description it’s a very coordinated approach to DAG 4.
Seeing as there’s a bit of a delay, speak up in case I don’t see messages or hands. Hearing nothing, let’s move on then. The ALAC and regional leaders’ working session on Sunday, I’m looking at the planning for the Brussels meeting. Who wants to start the ball rolling on this? Heidi?
Alan Greenberg: Before we do that, can someone give me the link to the Brussels Sunday agenda? I’m trying to find out where I have conflicts with the GNSO
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Heidi, can I get you to pop that into the Adobe Chat quickly?
Heidi Ulrich: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I didn’t think it takes that long for that link to appear.
Heidi Ulrich: As soon as my computer switches over to the right site.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I was going to say tell us when you hit return and we’ll all see how long it takes for us to see it.
Heidi Ulrich: I’m not even on the site on my own computer yet.
Alan Greenberg: I put it into side channel.
Sebastian Bachollet: I’m not on Skype, so.
Alan Greenberg: I could fire that up.
Heidi Ulrich: I’ve put it in the Adobe Connect and apologies for it not being on the ExCom agenda. I thought it was.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just put it into the Adobe check so we don’t have to.
Alan Greenberg: Sebastian just did.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sebastian has rushed to it. There you go.
Alan Greenberg: Thank you. Now while I’m doing this Cheryl, you can just go back to the regular meeting.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: At the moment we’re looking at (inaudible 15:11) in 3 o’clock to 4:30 local would be a large improvement?
Alan Greenberg: That only conflicts with the draft applicant guidebook at 4.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. What’s the reshuffling going to look like? So I can just see what we need to make she schedule work? What other conflicts do you have, Alan?
Alan Greenberg: When do we start? We start at 9. All right; 9 to 10:15 is Vertical Integration.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And I’m in the room for that length of time, so you’ll need to be…
Alan Greenberg: 12 to 1 is a prep for the CCNSO meeting which I would like to be in but it’s not mandatory.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Would it be better if you were with us in the ATRT if it was changed?
Alan Greenberg: Okay, so there for the last half of it, okay, I can do that, assuming we’re all in the same convention center.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We’d be a floor apart, which should be all right.
Alan Greenberg: I’m sorry, that wasn’t a CCSO that was the PDP working team. Again, I can skip out on that if necessary. 1 to 2, is there a conflict? That’s the accountability one and that’s the prep for the GSNO meeting, I can also skip that. And 2 to 5 is GTLD
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: How do you want to talk about Sunday? Gentlemen, I think I’ll be in the room between 10:30 – 11 o’clock.
Alan Greenberg: Is Sebastian taking something earlier that I can swap him with?
Heidi Ulrich: I can move the links that Sebastian put out.
Alan Greenberg: There’s the one just before but that similarly overlaps.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Heidi, you’ve got our link open with all the gory details of each and every meeting?
Heidi Ulrich: Yes. Alan, are you asking to switch with Sebastian on that Sunday or on another meeting?
Alan Greenberg: I’m also supposed to be chairing the one with David Olive which is a 30-minute session starting at 2:30.
Heidi Ulrich: Do you want to switch perhaps the - you just continue with David and it goes straight into the ALS survey and then Sebastian takes from 16:00 down to 18:00?
Alan Greenberg: We can’t move David, I assume.
Heidi Ulrich: We could. I have not sent out the invitations yet.
Alan Greenberg: Oh, okay. If we can move the ALS survey to after the Confluence Wiki training; in other words, put my two together at the end of the session.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay, could you do the order, please? And also, just to point out that the ALS Survey Working Group has requested that their session go prior to the At-large Improvement.
Alan Greenberg: That’s fine.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay, so go ahead; what’s the order?
Alan Greenberg: There’s a working lunch with the review team; Confluence Wiki, ALS Survey, and David Olive. We’re just flipping ALS survey and David Olive.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay; and you’re going to be the moderator for all of those.
Alan Greenberg: No, I’ll be the moderator starting with David Olive. It means my session is continuous. I’ll start off in the GNSO and then at 3:30 I’ll do the David Olive followed by the At-large Improvements. It puts my end in a block so I don’t have to run back and forth four times
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think it’s imminently sensible.
Alan Greenberg: I’ll start with the GNSO, try to get in whatever I need to if I think there’s something important, and the rest I’ll listen to as a recording afterwards.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay, so Confluence will be by Sebastian?
Alan Greenberg: I don’t know who that one is. There’s no one listed on it.
Heidi Ulrich: It’s basically going to be self-taught, in a way, by Carol and Emma but we can have Sebastian, if he agrees, to start that; then go into the ALS survey.
Alan Greenberg: And if Sebastian can’t for some reason, then somebody else can take over. It’s just a matter of watching the clock and introducing people, if necessary.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes; it’s a traffic cop job.
Heidi Ulrich: Then at 17:30 it goes back to Sebastian is that correct, with the allocations for 30 minutes.
Alan Greenberg: That’s fine. The GNSO meeting ends at 17:00 – that part of it.
Heidi Ulrich: I’ll keep Sebastian as a moderator for that session.
Alan Greenberg: There is an RA working session that I’d like to be at, so that fits well.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Does that sort out our Sunday then, Heidi?
Heidi Ulrich: It looks like it, yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent, we can move on to item B under Section 3. We’re through with ALAC and Regional Leadership Group and ALAC on improvement on the Tuesday. This has been an exciting space of time that’s been much sought after and much neglected. We’ve almost had it; we’ve almost not had it; now we’re having it again. So what do we want to do with it? Yes, Heidi, go ahead.
Heidi Ulrich: Sorry; under Section A, it was not only to discuss the moderation of that but also what the deliverables were going to be on that. We had decided – and I just want to get confirmation – that the discussion, the 90 minutes will be basically divided into 45 minutes each between the review of implementation and the next steps in that as well. And the next 45 minutes will be the status of the At-large Director; is that correct?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I’m not going to be in the room, so he needs to negotiate with the moderator.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It seems clear to me. What’s Alan’s view?
Alan Greenberg: It depends whether you’ve announced the call for applicants by then.
Heidi Ulrich: We’re very much hoping to this week.
Alan Greenberg: Then since my name either will already be in the running or certainly afterwards, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss; and I’m assuming the same is true for Sebastian.
Heidi Ulrich: Should we ask Carlton to be the moderator for that particular discussion?
Sebastian Bachollet: May I?
Alan Greenberg: Sure.
Sebastian Bachollet: I really think that as Cheryl is sharing one of the groups, the BSDT, or the boss group, I think even if we need to move it to allow her to be with us. It’s a point where she must be there because she’s the one with the knowledge and it’s better that she’s running the session or taking part in the session, not to run it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The only way that that would work is if that part of it were switched out with the Tuesday time. Because there’s no way I’m going to be in the room on Sunday. I’ve no room since the beginning of the morning.
Heidi Ulrich: Do you want to then just discuss the At-large improvements on Sunday then focus on the At-large Director on Tuesday?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That would meet the issues Sebastian was raising and cover the concerns that Alan was raising.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay; if we have agreement with that, then I’ll make that adjustment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. That also means that there’s a clear partitioning we’re looking at, between At-large improvement on Sunday and we’re doing some drilldown and it might be quite timely to have some opportunities for people to start thinking seriously about the fact that the call has gone out. There will be some candidates already participating, I assume and they may think about other suitable candidates that they may wish to encourage, etc. I think that will work fine. Sebastian, how does that work for you?
Sebastian Bachollet: It’s okay. I think then we need to see what to move from Tuesday to Sunday but -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s not a matter of moving anything because we’ve already got a block of time which was a tight-hold of where we thought we might be meeting with the FIC and Legal in a formal meeting, as a follow-up from what we did in Nairobi. They don’t want to do that. They’re happy to meet with a (inaudible 26:50) but we have a 2-hour block there which we could use, shall we say 45 to 60 minutes, Heidi, for Recommendation 2 and discussion?
Heidi Ulrich: 45 minutes for discussion on Recommendation 2. Again, we don’t need to use the entire 2 hours. That was just a blocked part of time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I was just telling Sebastian it’s not a matter of needing to switch anything. It’s just a segregation of what topic goes in which place.
Sebastian Bachollet: Why we don’t move all the topic of improvement to this 2-hour block on Tuesday?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Obviously, we have to start out from the beginning on Tuesday. It will probably go over the gory details again. It seems to me that every time we get a larger than three people together talking about the at-large improvement, we’ve had to go backwards and go over old ground that has been on Sunday and people have had plenty of time to interact with the community and bring everyone up to speed. Then we won’t have the chance of getting meaningful discussion in the time allocated on Tuesday.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, I agree. By the way, for the humor part of this meeting, I just flipped to the Tuesday schedule and it said we already have the discussion on the At-large Director there. That’s because I focused on “Heidi; Director for At-large.”
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you for that.
Alan Greenberg: We are following the great ICAAN tradition of people using the exact same words in multiple ways.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: That’s something that people have brought up to us a number of times.
Heidi Ulrich: Give me an all-fly, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Apparently, you’re already there. Okay, I’m sorry to interrupt, but -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, no, no, you made us laugh so it’s a good thing. So, I think that probably means that we probably do have our goals and our agenda and me as a moderator on the Tuesday?
Heidi Ulrich: Which then actually helps us answer the next question - and my computer is completely shutting down.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh dear, I do hope your ICT program’s not…
Heidi Ulrich: It’s literally (inaudible 29:43). I’ve never seen this before. Anyway, that means that the informal meeting with the chairs of the SIC and BDC and also Samantha from legal, if that could be scheduled either Monday or Tuesday, that would be useful. Actually, Monday so we can have an updated discussion on Tuesday on that issue.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes; when are we then - moving to item 3 under section three – going to try and schedule that?
Heidi Ulrich: Geedwa, are you on the call?
Heidi Ulrich: Oh hi, Dev. Geedwa, do you have any suggestions for possible times? I know we need to coordinate of course, with Ray and Dennis but also I’m aware that Cheryl has an extremely busy schedule.
Geedwa: Just as an update so Cheryl can hear this, I’ve put in all the meetings from all the emails that she sent me. However, I do need to double check if there are any ones from the main schedule that she wishes to attend with what she’s currently got in her calendar. I’m not sure, Heidi, if you can actually see the Google calendar. There are quite a few of the ATRT meetings on Monday. I’ve found a slot between talking in UTC. 13:00 to 15:30 UTC, which is between the ATRT affirmations review meeting and are to be confirmed Law Enforcement Amendments.
Heidi Ulrich: Sorry, what time is that in local Brussels time?
Geedwa: 15:00 to 16:30
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Practically the whole of Monday afternoon.
Geedwa: And we’ve also, if we need to, the ATRT meeting on Monday morning starts at 10 o’clock local time. So we could squeeze something in on Monday morning. Oh, no we can’t because we’ve got the opening ceremony at 9 o’clock; my apologies.
Heidi Ulrich: What about the coffee break Monday afternoon starting at 16:30?
Geedwa: 16:30 on Monday afternoon; this law enforcement meeting needs to be confirmed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, that’s going to involve us all. I thought that was confirmed. That’s something that the ARA meeting will discuss later today.
Geedwa: The next meeting, Cheryl, for that day is at 6:30, 18:30 local.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Would we better seeing if we can have an informal meeting at the beginning of that 2-hour block on the Tuesday? We currently have 16:00 to 18:00 hours on the Tuesday blocked up for the workshop on ALF improvement, that we decided we’ll be running on recommendation 2. Would we better having, say, what do you think it will take, Heidi, half an hour?
Heidi Ulrich: Yes, I think so.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sebastian and Alan, what do you think about starting the formal session on the Tuesday afternoon, perhaps for about three quarters of an hour, half the current scheduled time? Say from… when does afternoon tea finish? Is that 16:45?
Heidi Ulrich: I thought it was 16:30 to 17:00 but if someone has…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: In which case, we can have our recommendation 2 discussion running 17:00 to 18:00 and we try and set up our informal meeting with the chair of the SICBGC and legal department, with the EXCOM in around the 16:00 mark. So, somewhere between 16:00 and 17:00, even with a cup of coffee in our hand, we should be able to knock off the informal one, shouldn’t we?
Alan Greenberg: We’re talking about Sunday, right?
Heidi Ulrich: Tuesday.
Alan Greenberg: Oh, Tuesday; sorry I have no GNSO commitments on Tuesday, so if it fits, it fits.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sebastian, works for you?
Sebastian Bachollet: Okay.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, see if we can line that up, then, Heidi.
Heidi Ulrich: Okay; so Geedwa, if you could contact Dianne, please? And I’ll contact Samantha.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And Geedwa, I sent you the other ITRT schedule. Heidi, I thought you got one as well.
Geedwa: I’ve been in touch with Alice this morning. I’ve got the latest one.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Right, you’re probably ahead of everybody, then. That’s great.
Geedwa: And then it’s already in your schedule.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. I’ve just noted a whole lot of things going into my schedule; I haven’t gone through it yet. I’m trying to get through the next couple of hours.
Geedwa: That why you need to catch up to see what’s in the main schedule as well.
Cheryl Indeed we do, indeed we do.
Heidi Ulrich: So just to confirm; that means that the At-large improvements, the only discussion we’re having on that is that full 90 minutes on Sunday, is that correct?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, with recommendation 2 for 45 minutes on 17:00 to 18:00 local time slot on the Tuesday. Is that all right with Seth?
Heidi Ulrich: Seth, you might be muted. It’s *7 to un-mute.
Seth Greene: Sorry about that. Cheryl, I’m having a little trouble hearing you; sorry. I’m sorry, the question was is that okay with me?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes.
Seth Greene: Yes, that’s fine. I was hoping that in this meeting we could go over the more specific agenda for the Sunday meeting on improvement. Do you want to do that during this meeting or is it not a good time?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Let’s come back to it because I’m very keen and you really need to deal specifically with everybody but me on that because I’ll actually be very far during that. Obviously, I’m interested in making sure it runs well. If we can just quickly then move to what seems to be more of a main role now that we’ve got you off mute, Seth.
The next thing on the Agenda, assuming that we’ve got the informal meeting with the chair of the SICBGC, which Samantha sorted for a potential Tuesday, is the (inaudible 37:14) data table. So perhaps you can take us through that and the SIC dashboard and then come back to the gory details of the Sunday. By then, we will be looking at the top of the hour when we have to close off. So I suppose, just before I let you take over the whole call, Seth, ask is there going to be any other business? Alan or Sebastian, do you have any other business you want to bring to this meeting?
Alan Greenberg: I don’t believe so.
Sebastian Bachollet: No.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Terrific. And obviously there’ll be a number of us in the room at the next Board meeting let’s take calls after the upcoming board meeting and information sharing. In which case, Seth, if you want to just take us through…
Sebastian Bachollet: Sorry, Cheryl. I think that I have a little other business. Maybe just one minute.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: What is it?
Sebastian Bachollet: We were discussion my participation in the VI meeting on Saturday morning. It seems that the travel staff didn’t take that into consideration. I sent a message out but I think that we have to spend time on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, because we’ve got a hard stop before the top of the hour I’d like to devote the rest of this meeting, the ExCom, pretty much unilaterally to the matters that Seth wants to go through with us, by going through the agendas and making sure that the agenda is sorted. What…
Sebastian Bachollet: That’s okay, Cheryl. It’s supposed to be recorded and we will settle that by mail. Don’t worry.
Alan Greenberg: Sebastian, just for my information, is the question whether you will be there, or who is paying for your hotel?
Sebastian Bachollet: It’s the second.
Alan Greenberg: Okay. If you are committed to being there anyway, any decision we make today will not be different from the one that is made next week.
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes.
Alan Greenberg: But it’s on the record that you raised it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I just want to make sure ... you have arrived and… you’ve got some sort of accommodation, haven’t you?
Sebastian Bachollet: I have accommodation and everything is sorted but I just received my (inaudible 40:01) it’s just 8 days and not 9 days and I think it will be sent for the hotel. I sent a mail this morning to ask them what was the decision, and I don’t know yet. I wanted to get - it was just to be recorded. That’s okay; we’ll manage.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: All right. I don’t know how you people work out what you… the money just arrives and I end up using it. I don’t even know what the daily rate is that we would -
Sebastian Bachollet: $72
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: There you go; I would have to do some math and work out the rate.
Alan Greenberg: You should have more because your travel is farther. You get extra days for travel.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, it’s never happened yet, so I can’t imagine why it would happen this time. (Inaudible 40:53), I’m not aware of that.
Alan Greenberg: They’ve always calculated my -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It just never has yet. However, it’s on the record. If you’re happy with us having no further discussion but that it is officially on the record, let’s hand over this call to Seth to take us through the protocol. He will talk specifically now on the dashboard idea and the GNSO. He’s given us an example that I think we’re going to have a look at in the Adobe room now. So really I’ll just leave it to Seth and Heidi, then it closes off and Seth will take us back into the specifics of the Sunday Agenda. And Alan, you’re primary agreeing or disagreeing agent here.
Oh, pretty colors! And it’s in a circle! Okay, I feel what we will be looking for is something that says ‘At- large improvement’ and a single set of key points in a visual image. Is that the case? Am I guessing correctly? Seth, are you on mute again?
Seth Greene: Hello…
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, we can hear you now.
Seth Greene: Yes, in this GNSO improvement slide – there’s a series of about six of them or so – we could obviously doctor them to fit our needs if you’d like, Cheryl. On this one you can’t see it as obviously, but on the next ones, on the next four or so, they’re very simple basically, with two lists. One, pending items and completed items with some graphics added. I think they were just added for the sake of graphics. I don’t quite understand them. There’s an arrow pointed up for things that are pending and an arrow pointing down for things that are completed.
Sure, it would be very easy if we wanted to use the slides for any meeting to report on our progress. It’s simply as I say, two lists that you don’t see here; but there are two lists. Ah, here’s an example; the completed arrow on the right going down. The ‘remaining’, which is an odd word for items still pending or items to be done, going up on the left.
So, we could have a similar set of slides, certainly. The question would be, exactly what points do we want on each one? We could have a detailed one for each recommendation; but that’s probably too much information for any of the meetings that are going to be held in Brussels.
We could have one slide with general overview points; completed, submission of project plans to seek appointment of work teams and so on, on the right. Then ‘the remaining’ on the left would be whatever the tasks to be done next that we wanted to actually highlight. So these are certainly usable if we wanted to adapt them from GNSO.
Alan Greenberg: I would tend to say that I would prefer column headers to the arrows up and down. It’s not clear what they mean and one can add connotations to them which are not all that good.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Dev, now you’ve joined the call; thank you. I’ve noticed Dev fell victim to the fixed date and time indicating the (inaudible 45:43) so he managed to collect that data in his diary in the few moments when fixed time and date was in error. Unavoidable, Dev but I’m glad you’re here now.
Dev: I am sorry, Cheryl. I am sorry for this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No problem. Looking at those diagrams Alan was suggesting that we stick with column headers, and get rid of the arrows. Seth certainly feels the arrows were an exercise in (inaudible 46:15). What do you feel on that? And then Sebastian and Heidi can jump in after you.
Alan Greenberg: Heidi has her hand up, so she wants to speak.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: She can say what she wants when you’re done.
Heidi Ulrich: I’ll put my hand down and give the floor to Alan. I just wanted to give a little bit of background of where these came from; and yes, of course, we can adjust them as we wish. That’s all I wanted to say.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well you’ve said it now, well done. Dev, I’ve given you the microphone; how do you feel in theory about this simple graphic representation?
Dev: Is the question to me?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes it is, Dev.
Dev: I think it’s very much explicit instead of having a lot of literature. With these graphics it’s well presented. It’s well presented on one background where you’ve got a lot of information; because as you realize, most of us have a lot to do and less time. So basically, even during the meeting also, this will be very helpful.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, Sebastian, your view?
Sebastian Bachollet: I am a PowerPoint man. I prefer always PowerPoint to word documents. I think we can take some inspiration out of that. The question will be how we will manage if the five items of the GNSO improvement – if there are certain items or if it’s something else, how we could show the question in the document; for example, the budgetary implications and the liabilities. It could be also one slide. But asking those questions just to try to find a way to put the last document of Seth within the PowerPoint and I think it’s a good idea.
Dev: Cheryl; just to add, on the document we can also have like hyperlinks. If we want to get further information, just click on the link and you get another slide with supplementary information.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We can certainly build towards that. I think that might be a bit optimistic before Brussels. But it will be nice to have the links utilized here after Brussels. Back to Heidi and Seth; how do you feel the information from the person can be put into something that is not overly-cluttered? I think we probably can do some clustering. I don’t know, Heidi, whether you and Seth have discussed this or whether you’ve thought along those lines.
Heidi Ulrich: We have not discussed that but I think that particularly using the linkages that have been outlined in the project plan, that that might be a way to start. Seth? Is that what you think?
Seth Greene: Sure; that’s certainly one possibility. My concern, Cheryl, as you mentioned is what do we actually need for Brussels at this point, as far as slides go? Now my understanding is that we’re only looking at this GNSO model for certain slides for Brussels; is that correct?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes. I see it as how can we exploit this visually simple but meaningful – for those who don’t want to go into gory details – template. And in the absence of arrows going up and down on the side of the page; things like the little double arrow marker on things that are yet to be completed and a tick next to those that are completed and the couple of the headings that we have already got a significant way through, would make sense to me.
Alan Greenberg: You might want to use larger ticks and invert the right to left column, though.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes; that’s probably a god idea, actually. So what do we think? We want to put in a couple of things… it’s basically a matter of having….
Alan Greenberg: And have rotating colors
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes; a short-handed version with a color- coding indicating major components off implementation processes. A number of what we put together in that recent document that we put forward to the board. In those ones we identified cross linkages with things that need to be done as a correlate or a precursor to the next thing. That could be clustered together. We probably can get these into five or six, certainly no more than seven discreet, color-coded ‘bits’ for the want of a better word. Seth, how do you feel about that? Achievable, all too much, worthwhile, what?
Seth Greene: I’m sorry Cheryl, were you asking me?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, I was. You’d be the one who was popularizing this, Seth.
Seth Greene: Sure; I’m not sure if it’s do-able by Brussels. I certainly could try. I’m wondering how many slides we should create in total for the Sunday meeting as well as for the informal meeting with the SIC and so on.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The informal meeting with the SIC will be a slide-free zone. But I do think that the pretty picture and the visual template may be a useful tool to utilize during the Sunday. What do you think, Alan?
Alan Greenberg: I support it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I guess that takes us back to the marketing principle. We are not won over by arrows going upwards and downwards.
Alan Greenberg: But it’s not a huge issue. Let’s not make too much about that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: The principal theme, the color representation starting with a circle or an oval with a number of column modes. then drawing down to a slide themed on that color mode and topic, showing what is completed and what is yet to be done, noting that we would prefer that order to complete it to and things that have been done in the second column. It’s probably a good way to start to getting the look and feel that may end up being very useful for follow-up presentations as well.
Seth Greene: If I may just ask, Cheryl, you’re still talking about not an overview of what’s needed but recommendation by recommendation, clustered as far as linkages go.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, clustered. And to be honest, the working documents have really degenerated so much over the years anyway. They’re a long way now from the deep and meaningful bits that are in the original workgroup report. That’s where (inaudible 55:50) review documents and probably should also pay attention to in a sort of graphic representations. Otherwise, you lose things. Like, for example, the path in the ARX where review workgroups reports mention the equity and treatment of the at-large constant travel being an issue, when we are put in 2nd class accommodation, etc.
That doesn’t ever appear in any of our documents, especially since Seoul or before Seoul. But at least it’s something worthy of reminding at least half of our teams and does need to be addressed by the time we tick them off. So, having the ability to use the same high-level helicopter graphic view then grill down to the gory details as required is important.
Adam: I notice it’s a minute before the hour.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And some of us have to get to the Vertical Integration course. Seth, quickly; what do you need Alan as moderator for the meeting for Sunday?
Seth Greene: I think two things. One, obviously the agenda; and two, perhaps not exclusively from Alan but to do the slides I would need to go through the recommendation with,,, well Heidi, I could certainly start with you. But I would need an update on where we stand with each task, which is something that was talked about but which we haven’t gotten to yet.
Heidi Ulrich: Seth, I think these PowerPoints are not for each task. I think that they’re more for each recommendation. Again, like Cheryl said, the slides are for the Helicopter view while the simplified outline is something that we could then update with where we are with each of the tasks.
Seth Greene: Okay; but for the recommendations, are we not going to have under each recommendation within the clusters any of the completed/ still to be completed tasks?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think if we can that would be good; but probably we’ll need more details than we’ve put together in the pretty colored column. For this stage, anyway, than was put into the last report for the SIC which showed things simply as percentages. It may offer us a little more detail for some of those charts so we can seek out those tasks that we know are completed.
Alan Greenberg: I’ve got to leave now. Seth, to the extent you need my time, it’s going to be virtually impossible before I leave here. The latter half of Friday afternoon should be quite possible assuming you’re going to be there then.
Seth Greene: Okay, thank you, Alan
Alan Greenberg: Bye-bye, all.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’ll be with you in that call in a moment, Alan.
Heidi Ulrich: Cheryl, Seth and I can work together on this but again, as you said to confirm, this does not need more than about five slides.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: No; definitely not. You might make it seven but I would think somewhere between five and seven. All right, anything else? Dev? Sebastian?
Sebastian Bachollet: No, that’s okay. We have to move to the other call now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Indeed we do.
Sebastian Bachollet: And Seth, if you want some help on the PowerPoint, don’t hesitate to send me.
Seth Greene: Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think it would be important for you two to correspond; do a bit of work with Heidi and just correspond with the ExCom guys. I think that’s fair and reasonable.
Seth Greene: Terrific, got it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Alright, I think that’s all.
-End of Recorded Material-