Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Background material for today’s call is of course the FY11 operational plan and budget, and Kevin has made himself available, as at the previous meeting with the ALAC executives to be a little bit prepared for where we were reading some parts of the operating plan and budget in one way, and in fact the intention of how we were to read they operating plan and budget was another way.
So I’m quite sure he will be covering off this and those issues in a moment, and also our reference points are also to be drafted on FY11 community support guidelines. We’ll be looking specifically for questions from the At-Large community, and obviously the questions from the regional members will be very much from the point of view of what may or may not be able to happen with the proposals for regional regular planning, and regional assemblies.
That is probably going to be facilitated in a normal manner going through perhaps alphabetically, and then perhaps reverse alphabetically, at my whim. So that’s how we’re going to run the call. I see now hands waving desperately at me. Kevin is giving apologies from staff, in the chat, why are you apologizing? Apologizing for staff in general? What are you up to?
Kevin Wilson: I just wanted to clarify what struck me as funny is where Mattias and I are sitting over on the right, it says apologies colon, and there’s a blank, and then right after that it says staff.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We are always happy to have a pedantry approach in our call. Not a problem. Now, Kevin, seeing as you are forewarned and forearmed on some of the issues, would you like to dive in the deep end now and perhaps preempt some of the questions that you know will be coming from the community, particularly with reference as to how we have read some of the pages, and what the intention was, with how we were supposed to read some of the pages from the operating plan and budget.
Kevin Wilson: Thank you, Cheryl, and At-Large community and ALAC community which we met with last week, I just want to say thank you on behalf of the staff, the leadership for letting us meet with you today. We really appreciate that, and it’s always a great pleasure to dialogue on key issues like the budget and the operating plan.
As you mentioned, Cheryl, I think there was some misunderstanding with one of the lines in the appendix which talked about support for the general assembly; I assume that’s a key focus. I would be happy to talk about anything in the operating plan and the budget. It’s a bit early here, so I don’t have a hard copy in front of me, but –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: You should know us by now, Kevin.
Kevin Wilson: We were all pretty involved in the development, I hope I can answer at least follow up and answer an questions that come up, but in general, this is not a cso approved budget, I just want to make that clear for perhaps those who might be new to the process. It really is a bottom up multi-stake-holder, multi-language, multi-national, multi-constituency budget that goes through a long process, starting with a strategic plan, and works through the operating plan.
And budget development with the posting of the framework for this year before the Nairobi meeting, lots of discussion at the Nairobi meeting, and then a number of calls and meetings including several with the At-Large community, and then that results in the posting of the draft budget, which is mandated by by-laws to be 45 days before the fiscal year end.
And then that leads to the meeting, this year in Brussels, in which further discussions occurred, and then reaching the Board, the budget is submitted to the Board for adoption, in this case this year in Brussels, they did adopt the budget of some $59 million in operating expenses, plus -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Kevin, just to stop you there, and thank you for that background, I think remembering that we have had the community calls just on briefing, if we can cut to the chase here, what we have is a system where on certain days, on this call, are aware of how we got to this point in time, but having got to this point in time, we have differences in interpretation, differences in opinion, and huge disappointments as a result of that. So let’s get down to pin tacks.
Kevin Wilson: Yes, so I was just leading to that, but the main reason that I thought that was important to lead with that, I’m going to dive into what I think you’re going in to, is explaining that this budget is adopted by the Board and understood by the finance committee, who recommended it.
And I’m not saying that there aren’t misinterpretations, I’m just saying that is the process. So then the key issue that I heard, at least at the last call, was this concept of one of the appendix, I think it was A8, that said there would be support for general assembly’s over the next three years for the –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Putting under policy, yes.
Kevin Wilson: Yes, is it A8? I think it is. Under policy development support, and really that kind of policy development support or the ICANN budget support for the general assemblies, in my mind, falls under three areas. And then the travel guidelines are in a separate area.
The three areas are, loosely, if you look at just dollars out the door, it’s staffing, so its secretariat and policy development support, so it’s Heidi and Mattias and their teams, some of David’s time, and there are other folks in the policy development support area, the executive team that actually provides staffing support.
It’s technical support for things like phone calls and email lists and website modifications and things like that that are in, from an internal standpoint, on the IT development side, it’s also meeting support, so as you know, we spend almost, actually over $10 million per ICANN meeting, so that includes the rooms, the audiovisual support, the logistics, the interpretation in the meeting, and then I would probably throw in translation as well, after the meeting.
Not necessarily related to the meeting, but also managed by the same group of people. So as far as travel support, I think that is where the key confusion came in. When we put support, I think there was, from what I’ve heard on prior phone calls, is that many interpreted the word support as travel support.
The travel guidelines which I believe are now posted in draft form, we were tweaking it to post it as final version, it will be shortly if it isn’t posted already for FY11. Actually I think what happened is the FY11 travel guidelines are posted right now, they are called version one just in case there are further adjustments made –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Appended to our agenda, Kevin, yes.
Kevin Wilson: Okay, great. So those travel guidelines are very explicit for what kind of support is provided for each stake-holder group and constituency group, and from discussion we’ve had over the last few years, we’ve continued this on for the FY11 travel support, we’ve provided for the regional organizations, the RALOs, to get support as a tradeoff with ALAC.
Of course, for the – with the idea that there would be more efficient costs and possibly there would be more people and more travel slots allowed for – associated with general assemblies, conceivably than other similar type meetings to do that. So there’s sort of bucket that we manage with that. I think it would be irresponsible.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Just at that, do you remember the proposal that came out of our meeting with the executive (inaudible 0:09:58.7) at the end of the Sydney meeting, we’re talking a little over twelve months ago now, was specifically for the intention of trying to find a way to facilitate the much needed and desired by our community.
And indeed I believe well justified reasons for having general assembly’s when we were already locked into an FY10 budget. It was not implied that that was the form of how we might ever forevermore and all future budgets for FY10 on, try and manage, juggle, or try and tweak general assembly funding.
And indeed the community, at that time, the regional leaders decided it was during that period to continue to support the regional leader travel under the FY10 travel guidelines, than it was to allow for a partial, not even full, general assembly for one region. So it’s really important because this is going to be a very tense and very confrontational conversation we are having today, that we make sure that we keep our apples and our oranges clearly identified.
We’ve got 85 new words in the budget, which some of us, not unreasonably in our view, read as new business. Those 85 words you’re now telling us were descriptive of an ascertainment and iteration of continuation of old business, i.e. the ancillary support provided.
So when we’re also now discussing how we thought we could perhaps, from an older budget, try and do general assemblies, we need to remember what we are carrying over and what we can carry over, and what could have been, and indeed in some views, were seen as new business. Okay. While I’ve got a hand up, go ahead Sebastian.
Kevin Wilson: Before Sebastian, can I just finish one thing? Really, I’m not defending my interpretation of the budget, I’m just looking at the travel guidelines and that’s kind of why I go through the process today to tell you that. I’m happy to hear the interpretations and discussions, and I think the rest of the staff is too.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, we are where we are.
Kevin Wilson: It’s not a defending my position versus other people’s positions.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Good. I’ve got Sebastian, then I’ve got Tijani. Go ahead Sebastian. You will be muted. Please use *7 to unmute. Sebastian?
Sebastian Bachollet: Thank you. Yes. I want to just to add to your point, Cheryl, with the wording, the number of words, with the new business, so this wording, in major part if not all the words came from our own documents and our own thinking since the document we sent for to reference different documents on strategy and operational planning.
And if something taken from us didn’t say, didn’t have the meaning of what we say, that means the – there’s a way to take that the original document must not be checked before. I am really sorry about that, but it’s our word put in your (inaudible 0:14:02.8) staff and of the budget and to really the meaning behind it is what we wrote, not what somebody thinking our words would write. Thank you very much.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thanks, Sebastian. Kevin, I’ll cluster a few because I think you’re probably going to get a lot of similar thoughts, and then it’s probably easier for you and Steve to respond to clusters than it is one at a time, or we’ll be here for a hundred days. Tijani, you previously had problems getting your microphone down. I’m having problems giving your microphone to you, so whilst I’m not being able to give you the microphone in the adobe room, please do speak, the microphone is yours.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Cheryl, someone take off on my (inaudible 0:14:55.9) so it’s an opposite problem. Okay. Good afternoon, Kevin. I guess it is good morning for you. I have problem with the manner the budget is put. I don’t think that when you plant a communication action in which there is problem, you put this money in the travel support budget. Travel support, as I understand it, is travel support for the ICANN meetings, the three yearly ICANN meetings.
So when another action is planned, which is not inside the three yearly meetings, it cannot be put in the travel support budget, it is another thing. That is why when we proposed in the budget, the proposal of the budget, those actions, we were waiting for a new item in the budget for them. You cannot put in the travel support, because you stuck the amount of the travel support as of last year, and you say this is the budget for this year.
So there is no other action possible this year, because there’s no money for this. I am not speaking only for the IGS venues; I am about the general assemblies. The general assembly is not part of the three yearly meetings, and the intention, we asked for the general meetings, but the intention wasn’t to cut it from the travel support budget.
Because if the regional leaders don’t go to the meeting, the yearly meetings, there will not be possibility for meeting for the secretariat any more, also in the ALAC meetings, during the meeting of the ICANN, the inputs of the regional leaders if very important. So it is different. It is really different.
The problem is that you put every problem for ALAC or for At-Large in the travel support, and since you did it, you didn’t share the amount of the travel support, there will not be any other action for the At-Large community for this year. That’s all.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And Tijani has reiterated the rationale that this is giving regional leadership their choice to not use funds freed up from them not traveling to the three meetings in the FY10 budget to put a ticket together to try and get in to get funds for a future general assembly for one region. Go ahead, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: You now, part of what I am going to say will sound familiar to those who were on the last call with me. We’re talking about a multi-lingual community, the budget framework was published in a number of languages, I don’t know if the final budget was or not.
This document uses the term support in two completely different ways, and spells it the same, and doesn’t flag them with any footnotes, and it is unreasonable to expect even English speakers to assume that we each know what the definition of support is in each case. Travel support means you’re supporting travel, i.e. paying for it.
The section is A.8 where it says the policy group will support things, says we will support it emotionally and with secretariat support and things like that, which is a completely different issue. So my point number one is, even if we’re only dealing in English, we have to use language precise enough that people will not misunderstand, and support is a loaded word.
Number two, I find it somewhat – I’m trying not to use too negative language, but somewhat misleading in section A.8 to say the policy group supports the concept, or supports the general assemblies, knowing full well that section A10 doesn’t allow any budget for it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And Kevin, Steven wasn’t on the call but – oh, Matt, welcome. I notice you are here as well. Steve and Matt weren’t on the call that you joined with the ALAC Excom, but when I use the words misleading and bordering on duplicitous, I’m still not convinced that I still shouldn’t be using them. Because I do think while it wasn’t intentional, I trust, the outcome has been exactly that.
And misleading of a very large part of the internet end-using community within ICANN, which we can’t fix, because it’s happened, but we now need to deal with, which is one of the main purposes of this call. We do have the opportunity for longer term planning, beyond the FY11 operational planning budget, and indeed beyond the draft FY11 community travel support guidelines.
And whilst I have the feeling that you in particular, Kevin, are hearing things that you’ve well and truly heard before, some of it might be new to Steven and Matt, and perhaps David. We can run a little longer, with making sure we all understand wherein our concerns are, but I would also like to spend the better half of today’s meeting looking at where we need to go to, back to you, Alan.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, I just in line with that I’ll point out that the statement in A.8 is talking about over a three year term, and although there have been very strong discussions about holding general assembly’s this fiscal year, we can meet A.8 in our reading of it, by covering it appropriately in the fall and two fiscal years.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We would need a fair degree of mutual work and understanding to make that -
Alan Greenberg: Confidence. I’m just pointing out that it is possible to have the two co-exist.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, many things are possible. We’ll see what we might end up with. Kevin, I don’t see any other hands in the adobe room, let me just ask on the Spanish and French channels, and then I’ll talk back to you, Steve, and Matt as well. Is there anyone in Spanish or French who wishes to raise a point at this point in the session?
Female: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear the previous comment that Kevin issued before Tijani’s question. So for the moment I don’t have any questions.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I’m talking back to Kevin now. I might just ask him to just reiterate briefly the points he made before Tijani. Go ahead, Kevin.
Kevin Wilson: Yes, I just once again, it’s helpful to hear what the misunderstandings are. I’m kind of curious how they developed, and I appreciate Alan and others sharing the language and the misinterpretation of the word support. I would probably just suggest that the executive summary was pretty clear in what in increased and what was not.
The Executive Summary and most of the documents were pretty clear on the overall budget receipts for a variety of periods, and to pull an inspection of page 61 of an 83 page document, I guess I’m still just a little confused on how we came to such a strong – I can see the question coming up, that totally makes sense, but I guess I’m a little surprised at how a vague term like support, you take it and run with such a strong and walloping gallop, such a strong place.
But that being said, I’m hoping this becomes a learning tool, but for us to do that, we’ll continue – it’s hard to have such a long budget document and such a complicated and growing and increasingly complicated organization such as ICANN, and the ICANN community to try to nail down and translate it and everything into English as well as the multiple languages, but we really do appreciate your ideas on how to do that.
The one point that I do want to push back on, I didn’t fully understand some of the comments that were made, but the draft travel guidelines were posted out there. The reason why we posted version one on this document was that maybe there wasn’t enough time for editing that document to get clear on what the community feedback was, but we did synthesize the comments we did receive, which wasn’t very many, to be honest, this year.
But it occurs that if we need to open up another session with more discussions on that document and then at some point on this call, or perhaps afterwards, if I could talk to you about what the plans are for David and ICANN about the provision in the budget that the Board has asked us to look at.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. I saw Tijani’s hand up. I tried to give him his microphone. Tijani, you without the microphone, and then Sebastian, who I think I have managed to give the microphone to. Go ahead, Tijani, and then Sebastian.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay, you hear me? Okay, very good, I have a (inaudible 0:25:52.3) question to Kevin. You asked us to give proposals for the budget of 2011, we did. Very clearly, options very well defined. The budget very well defined everything.
And we submitted it; we don’t see those proposals reflected in the budget, neither in the operation plan. And we don’t have any response, any reasons of this refusal. Can you please explain me why?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Back to you Kevin, on that one, and then we’ll move to Sebastian. Kevin, you might be muted.
Steve: No, no, he’s lost. Kevin is lost.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, dear. Well, that’s most unfortunate. Perhaps we need to get Kevin back, although in the interim, Steve, perhaps you can respond to that.
Steve: I’m not sure I’ve successfully unmuted.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah, there you are, you’re unmuted now Steve, go for it.
Steve: Okay, and thank you Cheryl for informing us that it was star 7, and not star 6, which is what a competitive service uses.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Ah, yes, yes. We can’t have consistency. If we had consistency, we’d have ease of understanding and predictability and clearly that is not the ICANN way.
Steve: Right. So Cheryl, thank you for inviting me to try and answer this question, but unfortunately I really do need to defer to Kevin, as he is what I call a more primary owner of the budget process, obviously all staff managers are involved on some level and we all have accountability around how the budgets develop.
But in this particular area my involvement was extremely limited and I’d rather not – as the proverbial expression goes for us smoking people, I think that would be insanely unfair at this point in time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Kevin is now unable to dial back in. I think the deities are playing unfair with Kevin at the moment. Gisella, can you or Heidi arrange for Adigo to call out to Kevin wherever he may be, at his breakfast table, or on the road, or in the office? I don’t particularly care where, just get him back.
David, while you’re on the call, I know you were going to be an active listener to this, but it is important that you get a fair measure of the angst, confusion, concern, and considerations that the At-Large community is talking about and asking for clarification on.
We certainly were a little, from our community point of view surprised that this fresh words living under the part of the budget that we think belongs to you, i.e. policy, were only a reiteration of already previously established (inaudible 0:29:22.5) support but not travel support that we now understand staff support and logistic support.
Is your role in managing how the budget is established and how the cake is divided; are you able to guide us as part of the community that is mainly under policy perhaps, how we can improve this process in future? While we try to get Kevin back, we’re looking for this to be a learning exercise? And it’s star 7 to unmute, David. Unless I’ve lost all of the senior ICANN staff on today’s call. Which is kind of sad, but that occurs. Yes, go ahead Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Are you sure that Adigo are calling Kevin, because he is enabled to call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: He is unable to dial back in. I can’t but trust the usually very efficient staff that we have, are working their hardest on fixing that. Yes, Adigo is dialing to him.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Very good. Thanks, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If he’s keeper of the keys, he’s got to be on the call. Otherwise we are not going to be very productive. Have we got you back, Kevin? Not as yet. David are you still on the call? Are you muted? That’s one of the great mysteries of the world.
Steve: Cheryl, if I might make a suggestion?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, go ahead Steve, please.
Steve: Yes, and this is more administrative at this moment in time, but the chat room makes a very good place for individuals, if you’re hearing the conversation and you are unable to be heard, and people keep asking if you would at least in the chat area say ‘I’m struggling to be heard’ we would know you were still on the call. I gather David was actually in transit if I recall, from the beginning of the call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yes, that’s why I kind of suspect him to be driving a car and in a chat room.
Steve: Right. But Kevin is back on the call now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I’m all for multi-tasking, Steve, but I think there are road safety rules as well.
Steve: There is, but Kevin has very effectively used the chat room as I just suggested.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent, and it appears to me like he is back on the call now.
David Olive: And so am I, Cheryl. I’m sorry, I got cut off. David Olive here.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Oh, my. Well, we lost all the important people at all the same time, leaving me to fill in the dead air. Well, having filled in the dead air, let’s just back this right back to Kevin. When did you drop out, Kevin? What didn’t you hear?
Kevin Wilson: I figured Tijani was just talking about he submitted the budget and then click, I got disconnected. Okay. Well, Tijani, the short version of what you said, if you’d like to pose the questions directly again to Kevin.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, okay. So you asked us to give proposal for the budget and for the operational plan. We did. We did it clearly. We put the action very well defined actions; we put the budget related to those actions, very clear, very detailed. And we were waiting to see them reflected in the operational plan and in the budget, but they weren’t. I ask you why there weren’t and if they are not good, why we didn’t receive an answer to why you didn’t consider them.
Kevin Wilson: Sure, yes, thank you Tijani. That’s a great question, and it’s essentially the same question I heard in the meeting in Brussels. In short, and in fact back to the original point that I made at the beginning of the call, which was there’s this process that has been around for three years.
We fine tuned it as the framework, but essentially there’s a very clear process from the bottom up, multi-stake-holder, bilingual, consensus based, process of developing the budget. It’s not someone gets a proposal and puts it in the budget; it’s not that – that is not the process. As much as I at times would like it to be that way, it’s not.
So what I – when I ever hear about someone submitting something for the budget, to me that means that either it should be put into the operational plan and budget public comment forum, and we make very extensive efforts, and added appendices identified throughout the document, to direct feedback to feedback to the budget.
Meaning that in theory every single comment that we received, received a line item in appendix C, which said whether we accepted it, rejected it, whether it – not we, whether it was accepted, whether it was rejected, or whether it was modified or somehow integrated into the process. But we read every comment and read every suggestion.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And we appreciate that Kevin, and I think that’s not quite the question that Tijani is asking. I think what he might be asking is where then, in the text can you see if a clear and outright rejection of travel support funding for general assemblies?
Kevin Wilson: Yes. So I’m not sure if there’s one line item for that. I don’t have all the line items in the appendices memorized, unfortunately. But I’m happy to go back and do that. The point I was trying to make in the Brussels meeting is if something got submitted, and it didn’t make it into Appendix C I wanted to know about it and I wanted that request forwarded to me directly, so that I could do my own internal review of the process and see what was going wrong.
It wasn’t a call for direct (inaudible 0:36:01.6) to me, you know as much as we might like to do that. So yes, we looked at that as well as many, many other suggestions and thought where we landed was the best interest of what the community wanted. I’m hearing loud and clear, at least with this group, on this call, these items there seems to be frustration on that, so we’ll address that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We have to do something about that in the future. Sebastian, go ahead.
Sebastian Bachollet: Yes, thank you. It’s really online with – Kevin, if you remember when we talk about (inaudible 0:36:53.4) by At-Large and ALAC on the strategic planning, we really were not fortunate to have the feedback on that, and we still don’t have. But then we say okay, time to conclude our project and we need to do strategic planning because it’s just a proposal, and then we submit the proposal as the same idea and the same project, and no more real answer except that we find this part of the document, and we say hey guys, we get an answer, and this answer is positive.
On the other hand I want to emphasize what Steven is saying about the fact that still since the origination of the RALOs we, each RALO, submit a budget about project for the next year, and we discover that it’s not taken into account, it’s not going the right way, it’s not going to the right person or the right place, but we do this job in our general assembly, even if it’s not a face to face one, each year.
That is something we need to fix, also, is how work done by our RALOs are taken into account by the global level of ICANN and to add one last point, it’s emphasized by some comments, but particularly by the LACRALO people and I guess I will say it again, but it seems that in the memorandum of understanding signed by the ALSs and the COs of ICANN there’s some commitment from ICANN on some of those issues, and we have to look to these five different documents.
I don’t think they are the same, and maybe I cannot give the same duty to each region, but I guess it’s an important document to have a look to. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Sebastian. That picks up on the points that Carlos Sebria had put into the chat space, Kevin. He’s on the Spanish channel, so perhaps, Mia does Carlos wish to follow up from Sebastian?
Mia: Let me see if there’s a followup.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Mia.
Mia: I’m getting lost from Mr. Aguirre at this time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Mia, was there a comment?
Mia: Yes, he was not able to hear the previous comment by Sebastian.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Just to reiterate, Sebastian pointed out the matter that Carlos had put into the chat, which was the fact that the memorandum of understanding signed by ICANN and the regions, and as Carlos’ is undoubtedly talking on behalf of his region, would specifically be to the LACRALO region, but Sebastian pointed out that all of the regions has a slightly different MOU, and we would need to look at each of those five documents.
In Sebastian, and I believe Carlos’ view, they were raising the point that there is a degree of commitment for a general assembly to go ahead, and that we also need to look at how ICANN is fulfilling its previous commitments with the regions, as the At-Large structures were developing in the regions.
And I think Sylvia has also, Kevin, just to help you there, put in a link as well. Go ahead Mia.
Mia: One second.
Carlos Aguirre: No, what I was saying in the chat was our region had a memorandum of understanding with ICANN in I believe 2006 or 2007 and in the Sao Paulo meeting, that’s where it took place, and within that forum and in the memorandum of understanding, ICANN was committed to support for the general assemblies to take place in the regions each year. This is not something that has not taken place.
I think that rules are made to be followed. I think that ICANN has a commitment to fulfill these roles into which they entered with our region, and with each of the ALSs in the Latin American region. In this memorandum of understanding, you know it never expired. ICANN never said I don’t agree with this.
So there is a commitment and there are rules that were set, so these are rules that need to be fulfilled, so I would believe that this is obligatory, that this is mandatory for the people in ICANN to ensure that these general assemblies take place in the region. And so I would like a response from Kevin or from Steve, I did post this in the chat.
I don’t know what the consensus is with the other regions, but I know that in our memorandum of understanding, that is very specified and very clear. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you Carlos, thank you Mia. Kevin, I think that’s one of those things you just have to take on notice, and as we move forward we just need to work our way through all of these issues. While you were being dialed back in Kevin, I unfortunately lost David at the same time, but I believe David is back on the call now.
I did ask in his absence whether or not he had any opinion, seeing as how up until now we’ve always seen ourselves being under what is the policy budget. This is probably why we read words fresh in the policy budget as reaction to our ongoing and continuing request for GA, rather than a continued affirmation of the logistical support we were already receiving; but I was asking David whether or not he had any information or suggestions about how we might improve this process in the future.
I don’t know, Kevin, whether you want to head into that territory now. I do see Tijani with his hand raised, so perhaps if Tijani, you make your points now and this can be before we move into the positive ‘where to next’ field rather than the miserable ‘damn I wish this hadn’t happened’ call line that we’re in now. Go ahead, Tijani.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: I would like to ask Kevin a policy question. Is there any chance to see for the next year, the budget for everything in the report? Is it possible to see in the budget money for available action, available initiative? Let the constituencies can provide – is it possible to see a different way to look to the budget.
If we do an action in the communication field, it shouldn’t be put in the travel support budget. It would be put in the communication budget. If you do, I don’t know, an action that is for policy building, etc., it would be outreach. It would be partnership. So it would not be in the budget of travel support of the meetings, the three meetings of the year.
Kevin Wilson: Yes, so let me jump in and answer that. Yes, so the short answer is of course. The views of the budget are essentially that, the views of the budget. There’s no hard and fast by-law driven description of what those specific views are, they are simply views of the budget, but I would – internally we should have specific action items that have specific dollar amounts for the support.
Then when it rolls up to the budget documents that provide the view, whether it is travel support to a meeting or any other of the categories that are impacted, obviously, when you come to a meeting and you’re supported by the meeting, that’s not where the cost might reside, but they might affect security, they might affect the new gTLDs process, they might affect any policy development support, it might affect any number of other areas.
So I think that’s a really good point, and I think the key is – sort of the over arching lesson learned here is we just have to be very, very clear whenever a word like support is used, to say what does that mean on all sides. We need to know that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. We need to move on to next steps. David, are you on the line now?
David Olive: Yes, I am Cheryl. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent. I had talked to you earlier, and given you plenty of time to prepare. Seeing that a community that large got very excited about the fact that under what we see as your part of the budget, which affects us, was support; we’re now being told this support is merely a continuation of the support we already had, and saw it as new business, we’ve got a set of expectations. How are we going to move from your point of view, to an improved situation?
David Olive: Yes, indeed. We do watch and review carefully the comments. The budget is of course, a prioritization exercise of what we can do quickly, or we can’t do quickly, and how we have to kind of look forward to spreading that out over time. I of course, came in new in the middle of this budget process. In trying to understand fully how to do this, we were sensitive and I speak daily with Heidi and her team supporting At-Large, on all these developments.
We try to incorporate the ideas as best we can. Since we have shared services across the ICANN budget, to inform those groups of the requests increasing the requests for either services and/or meetings and whatnot, but we can’t always accommodate them in any one particular year.
Also, I concur that the concept of support is different again because of the shared services across the ICANN entity, so how best and where to put that, there is no in a sense one line item budget. I have a support for the policy end of ALAC in a somewhat limited way, not in a general IT, communications, financing kind of way, but we try to integrate it.
We, of course, listen very carefully, and make proposals that link to the priorities of At-Large in general. Not all those priorities can be accommodated in one fiscal year, and I understand the budget needs to be clearer, as I myself am learning it and realizing the pros and cons, the deficiencies of clarity, if you will, of some of that, in looking at shared services across ICANN.
So indeed, that’s why a concept of more advanced consultations with the groups, but of course we hear what you are asking for and try to put them into the budget process, and alert others to that in the ICANN budget process, but not everything can be accommodated in one year, particularly in this flat budget year that we are engaged in.
We look to next steps of how we can elongate them or take other steps in the interim to meet the requirements and expectations of At-Large, but also knowing that the reality is we can’t do everything in any one year.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely, but we also need to just remind everyone on the call that the words, all 85 of them, and yes, I did count, were referring underneath the policy, we’re looking at for the ALAC during the period 2010 to 2013 ‘support one general assembly for each of the five regional At-Large organizations, RALOs in brackets, held in conjunction with either an ICANN or key regional internet stake-holder meeting in order to sift priorities, develop strategies for improving participation including capacity building programs and increasing engagement, such as recruiting new At-Large structures to achieve the goal of at least one At-Large structure per country worldwide.
These community support activities will contribute to a healthy internet eco-system’. As Sebastian pointed out, words directly from our proposal in the budget framework process, that have arrived fresh in the FY11 budget, and we now need to work out what that actually means, and what it apparently actually means is no travel based support for those activities but a level of support for the ongoing commitment for the shared support that we have for all meetings anyway.
I think we’re not trying to fit it into an FY10-11 budget, we are definitely looking at a multi-year plan, and hopefully as we look to where can we go to next, that might give us some wiggle room. So wiggle room, Kevin. Have you found any?
Kevin Wilson: Well, you know, as you know, there – when things are very small, meaning under – at some point where there’s a small amount we think that’s under – it’s at executive (inaudible 0:53:25.0) discretion to make adjustments to the budget. We do that, obviously you can’t anticipate everything in June – on June – the end of June for the entire fiscal year, so there’s staff discretion, and there’s disbursement guidelines and procurement guidelines to handle changes that happen during the year.
When it gets over a certain amount of the whole contingency amount is a million five, $1.5 million for this fiscal year. When it gets over a certain amount then staff goes and makes recommendations as we did this past fiscal year, FY10, makes recommendations to the finance committee who recommends to the Board to release that. Anything over that, I think in collective or an individual amount usually goes to the Board level and that decision is made at the Board, so –
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Sure. So if you had come and I guess also David, and to a lesser extent Steve and Matt, look at the increments that were prepared, and thank you Matt, while I’m on the record, for assisting us in having the Apralo and Noralo estimates added to the ratification and small adjustments made to the LACRALO estimates for the general assemblies that would fit in the next three years plan. Have you had an opportunity to review those estimated costs?
Kevin Wilson: I have not. I received them; it looks like I got them last night, so I have not.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, who do I shoot for that slackness?
Matt: Probably me.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Heidi, is it you I have to shoot?
Heidi Ulrich: No. Kevin, look in your inbox. Matt sent those to you last week.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Duck and cover is perfectly acceptable. However, since you do have them in your inbox, Kevin, perhaps it’s a good way for us to at the top of the hour say that they’re real figures. Matt has done an excellent job in assisting the community in preparing those, and I guess we really need to move it back before we can look at where to next, and come back with specifically to LACRALO.
Because there’s a meeting in Cartagena at the end of the year, and there’s an application from LACRALO asking can they organize a general assembly. As Kevin, Steve, and Matt will be very quick to remind you of, we’ve got deadlines happening very, very soon about travel arrangements for that meeting. Steve, when is the cutoff point? It’s perilously close, isn’t it?
Steve: Sorry, now that I’m back off mute. There’s always deadlines looming, the news is there are deadlines that are coming. The good news is that Matt has done some excellent work with our host in Columbia, who has done some excellent work with the Ministry regarding the visas issues, which was of course our largest singular concern, the visa requirements for folks to enter Columbia from around the world.
So I think the initial fears that Matt, Kevin and I have shared on the timeliness of getting the process started, while we still want timeliness, the visa issue does not appear to be the primary driver. The primary driver will likely be, again, hotel rooms, and we do not –
Mia: I’m sorry. This is the interpreter. Can you repeat that sentence again please?
Steve: Yes. The primary driver, or the primary motivating force for the deadline is likely going to be hotel rooms, and the assignment of hotel rooms, and we are still waiting for a final confirmation from the meetings team who is responsible for acquiring the blocks of rooms that get assigned, as to when the cutoff will be from the hotels. That’s when they need the names of the travelers and their dates of arrival and departure.
So I don’t have a final due date for you yet, Cheryl, but based on prior experience I would say that given that the meeting is at the beginning of December, these hotels will likely want a list of travelers and their dates, they usually look for about eight weeks out, which would put us at the beginning of October, which amazingly is not that far away.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It’s not that far away, but it’s not next week. We do have the opportunity for Kevin and others to look over the estimated cost documents that as I say Matt has quite excellently helped us prepare. And then, of course, there is that matter of if LACRALO is to have a general assembly in Cartagena.
They are obviously continuing on the assumption that they will be ready to provide all materials in the shortest possible time to meet whatever deadlines, knowing that the deadline is not next week, or indeed not even the first week of September, but little bit longer than that, does help a great deal. That is excellent news, thank you very much for that, Steve.
Steve: Cheryl, if I might just say one caveat so that we are all clear. So while the deadlines for the normal ICANN meeting process still has some time in it, if the At-Large community were to decide to add travelers and there was a way that could happen economically and through this inordinace of process that we are now going through.
If we find a way to do that, we meaning At-Large, Kevin, ICANN senior management, etc., the second we find a way to do that, and there’s then a need for additional hotel space, that could accelerate the deadline forward, if you understand what I’m saying.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I understand perfectly, yes.
Steve: So we can’t presume that the beginning of October is a nice solid deadline and we suddenly add 15 or 20 people and we can somehow magically make that work, with an October deadline.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Steve, to be very clear, LACRALO know pretty close the set of names they would need to be delivering you. What they don’t know is if there is any logistical possibility (inaudible 1:00:51.3)
Steve: Fair enough.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. We are at the point where we’ve run our full hour, having started approximately ten minutes past the hour. I think we’re at the point where other than calling for last comments we need to give Kevin and the travel team and other executives time to look at the estimated costs for the general assemblies.
I want to make it very clear that there is a reason for the LACRALO, NORALO, and APRALO General Assemblies to be coupled together in that costing, because we are using the 85 fresh words that indicate the in principle support, although it’s a definition of what does support mean which has caused us a bit of a problem.
We’re talking about the value of ICANN supporting a general assembly for a region when an ICANN meeting is in that region, so we’ve assumed that we can go for the next three years, and that there are opportunities for each of those regions to have an in sync with an ICANN meeting that have been costed out for review.
We also would like just to make sure, Kevin, that we are quite clear that there are non ICANN meeting opportunities as well, and that is also covered in the 85 fresh words where it does make it quite clear after all, they were our words, that it can be an ICANN meeting for another key regional or stake-holder meeting.
The advantage however, in our view, of it being attached to an ICANN meeting is one that allows a greater public participation and a greater outreach to an ICANN meeting, and we think as the internet end user is an important part in a post JPA and an affirmation of commitments world, it would make a lot of sense if we could synchronize these things in the ICANN meeting context.
But we put the estimated costs together; obviously you’ll need to pore over those. And how do you want to take it to the next step? Kevin, do we have an executive committee meeting? Has that doodle been closed, Heidi and Gisella? Do we have a date for that to let Kevin know?
Heidi Ulrich: Gisella?
Gisella Gruber-White: Yes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Do we have a date for the Excom meeting mid month?
Gisella Gruber-White: Not confirmed. I will get that out to you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. Kevin there is a doodle with a couple of dates. We do have a standing meeting –
Male: (Inaudible 1:04:16.0).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay. But that’s an opportunity, Kevin, for us to explore next steps on that and report back to the wider community. Would that work for you?
Kevin Wilson: I think that’s fine. David and I need to churn out what the (inaudible 1:04:37.1)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Absolutely, absolutely. As I’ve said in many a meeting, Heidi doesn’t have a budget, David has a budget. All right then. Well, thank you one and all, thank you Mia. Is there any final questions or concerns that need to be raised from the Spanish channel?
Mia: No, no questions.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you, Mia. Thank you very much. Sebastian, go ahead.
Sebastian Bachollet: Just as a (inaudible 1:05:21.6) we have a general assembly for Euralo, it will be organized during the meeting in (inaudible 1:05:29.6) and if the reading of these documents means that we will get support and even on board staff with us in (inaudible 1:05:41.6) to organize this general assembly and some people will be online, it’s just a (inaudible 1:05:49.7) but you have much to find be able to discuss and find the best way for a general assembly face to face. Thank you very much.
Mia: I’m sorry, this is the interpreter. Unfortunately Sebastian’s line was coming in and out; I think it’s because of cell reception. Could you repeat the question again for me, please?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I can – Sebastian was saying the Euralo, because they were also unable to have a general assembly in Brussels, because of the FY10 limitations we were working on, has arranged for a general assembly of both those who are face to face in the IGS meeting in (Villias) and those who will be able to participate remotely from the European At-Large regional organization to have a general assembly.
Sebastian pointed out and I think was thanking the staff support opportunities that clearly the current FY11 budget offers to the Euralo general assembly plans and I believe he was asking about the support outlined in terms of logistics, etc., that is in the current budget as Board approved in Brussels.
I assume for those people involved in organizing that general assembly will contact Heidi and take that question further. Sebastian, did I do fair effort at repeating what you said? Thank you, Sebastian. Sebastian has just put up a big grin so apparently I captured his intent. Okay, any other further comments from anybody? If not I would like to thank each and every one of you. This is a hugely important issue.
It is also, as Kevin said a learning exercise. When we are putting together documents and providing them to ICANN for consideration, and indeed when ICANN is putting together documents and sending them out to us for consideration.
We need to be very aware that those of us who write them have one set of interpretations and a great deal of familiarity with the intent, when we pass them on to be read by others, there is always a risk as we have seen in this exercise, of interpretations not meshing with intent. We have what we have in front of us.
What we need to do now is see where we go next, and I’m very thankful that the senior staff and executives of ICANN have been extremely cooperative and is looking toward finding the best outcome for us all over the next three years. Thank you Kevin, thank you Steve, thank you Mandy, you didn’t get any words in, but you’ve sat through so many of these outreach and how do we fund exercises.
I’d like to just point out that we do appreciate global partnerships participation in our deliberations and our discussions because we do see, as David was pointing out, with these shared resources, a great deal of overlap with others, and what we think we can do for ICANN. Kevin, it’s probable that you might want to get Steve and anyone else, probably David available for talking to the executive of the ALAC at the next meeting, but we will also be available for alternate dates and times because we’re keen to justify the next steps and a solution out of this issue, final words to you then Kevin.
Kevin Wilson: Thank you very much. We’ll make progress on this and keep you posted.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Looking forward to it. Thank you one and all.
-End of Recorded Material-